FHDC Procurement Card Receipts: Why Restaurant Bills Still Need Explaining
shepwayvox
FHDC’s officer subsistence figures allow £6.88 for breakfast, £9.50 for lunch, £3.76 for tea and £11.76 for supper — £31.90 for the whole day. Yet five procurement-card payments to Chez Antoinette, Lulivo, Sotirios, Three’s A Crowd and The Brittania all exceed that one-officer daily benchmark. And under Sheet 7 of FHDC’s own Retention Schedule Policy, receipts, invoices, credit-card statements and vouchers should be kept for six years from the transaction. So the paperwork should still be there.
Public money has a funny way of becoming shy once it gets near a restaurant bill.
Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s procurement-card data gives us five entries that deserve a very simple question: where are the receipts?
None of this proves wrongdoing. That needs saying clearly. Officers travel. Meetings happen. Conferences exist. Hospitality can be legitimate. Public business can involve food, drink, rooms, venues and long working days.
But rules also exist. So does arithmetic.
allow £6.88 for breakfast, £9.50 for lunch, £3.76 for tea and £11.76 for supper. Add the lot together and one officer’s full-day food benchmark is £31.90.
Against that benchmark, the five payments look like this:
That table isn’t a verdict. It’s a warning light.
Take Chez Antoinette. The published data shows £45.68 under Leadership Support, described as Public Transport & Car Park Expenses. A French café being recorded under public transport is quite the journey. Perhaps the code is wrong. Perhaps several people were covered. Perhaps it was linked to an official meeting. Fine. But if it was one officer, it exceeds the officer’s entire daily food benchmark.
Then there’s Lulivo, a £55.13 payment under Leadership Support, described as Refreshments Etc. That could be entirely proper if it covered several people at an official meeting. But “Refreshments Etc” is not an explanation. It’s a drawer where awkward details go for a little lie down.
Sotirios is more serious. The payment was £215.05, charged to the Housing Revenue Account, and described as Professional Advice & Fees. A restaurant payment appearing as professional advice is not a good look. It may have been a housing-related meeting. It may have involved external parties. It may have been tenant engagement. But if HRA money was used, tenants are entitled to know why. To fit £215.05 within the officer full-day food benchmark, you would need at least seven officers. To fit it within the officer supper limit alone, you would need nineteen. At that point, it’s less a meal and more a committee with cutlery.
Three’s A Crowd is already well known. Shepway Vox previously reported that this was connected to the Local Government Conference in Harrogate, attended by Cllrs Jim Martin and Tim Prater and Chief Executive Dr Susan Priest. The conference may well have been proper council business. That isn’t the point. The point is that £154 was published under Leadership Support / Public Transport & Car Park Expenses. A gastro pub is not a car park. It is not a rail fare. It is not a bus stop with olives.
If the known attendees were two councillors and one officer, the combined supper allowance would be £31.88: two councillors at £10.06 each and one officer at £11.76. The payment was £154. Maybe more people attended. Maybe it was authorised differently. Maybe it was conference hospitality rather than subsistence. Then show the record.
Finally, The Brittania, at £435.55, is simply too large to pass without proper explanation. It was coded as Hospitality under People & Customer Services. That may be legitimate. It may have covered a large group, an event, civic business, staff working long hours, or some other approved purpose. But to fit it inside the one-officer daily food benchmark, you would need at least fourteen officers. To fit it inside the officer supper limit, you would need thirty-eight. A number that large needs a guest list, not a shrug.
And here is where FHDC’s own paperwork matters.
Sheet 7 of the council’s Retention Schedule Policy says records identifying the receipt, expenditure and write-offs of public monies include allowances, invoices, credit-card statements, receipts and vouchers. The retention period is six years from the transaction.
That means receipts and supporting finance records for procurement-card payments in 2023, 2024 and 2025 should still be held.
Sheet 7 also covers the management of approvals and the process for purchase, including delegations, audit investigations and arrangements for goods and services. Those records are kept for seven years from the end of the financial year.
So this isn’t just about whether someone kept a till receipt. It’s about the full paper trail: the receipt, card statement, voucher, approval, coding decision, authorisation and any record showing why a café, restaurant, pub or hospitality payment went through the public purse.
There are reasonable explanations the council might give. Multiple attendees. Official meetings. Conference duties. Civic hospitality. Staff recognition. HRA tenant engagement. Exceptional circumstances. A wrong ledger code. A legitimate purchase badly described.
But “reasonable explanation” is not the same as “trust us”.
Public money doesn’t become less public because it was spent on a procurement card. If an officer exceeded normal subsistence limits, the exception should be recorded. If councillors were covered, the councillor allowance rules should be addressed. If hospitality was provided, the purpose should be clear. If HRA money was used at Sotirios, tenants deserve a proper explanation. If a restaurant bill was coded as professional advice, someone at the council should have spotted the absurdity before residents did.
The council’s own retention schedule says the receipts, statements, vouchers and approvals should still exist.
So the question is beautifully simple.
Not “was there food?”
Not “was there a meeting?”
Not “can public servants ever eat while working?”
The question is: show us the receipt, show us the rule, show us the approval, and show us why the public paid.
