Oportunitas Ltd: £14 Million in Property, Four Councillors and Twelve Years of Broken Promises?
shepwayvox
In 2014, Folkestone & Hythe Council expected its new property company to deliver a 7.3% investment return. Twelve years later, Oportunitas owns £14.35 million in property, yet forecasts just £70 a day in trading profit. Who’s checking whether the original promises have been kept?
That’s approximately £70 a day from a company owning 75 homes and one commercial property.
After twelve years, The Shepway Vox Team believes it’s time to ask a rather simple question.
Is Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC) getting what it was promised?
The woman behind Oportunitas
Back in December 2013, Dr Susan Priest (pictured) was FHDC’s Corporate Director for Economic Regeneration. She was the senior officer named on the report proposing a council-owned housing and regeneration company.
The idea was straightforward. Buy and rent homes, support regeneration, create employment opportunities and bring additional income into the council.
By August 2014, the council’s business plan was forecasting a 7.3% return on its investment. This was a long-term financial calculation, rather than a promise of 7.3% annual rental profit. Nevertheless, it gave councillors a clear expectation against which the investment could eventually be judged.
Dr Priest was Oportunitas’s first registered director. Today, she’s FHDC’s Chief Executive. The officer who helped establish the business now leads the council that owns it. That doesn’t make her personally responsible for every decision taken since, but it certainly makes the original business case relevant to her leadership.
The Shepway Vox Team previously revealed another uncomfortable fact. Oportunitas was incorporated on 14 May 2014, yet Cabinet didn’t specifically authorise incorporation until 16 July — 63 days later. That difference doesn’t itself establish unlawfulness; an earlier lawful delegation would need to be ruled out. But the council should explain what authority was used when the company was registered.
Twelve years later, the bigger question is this:
Did the council ever achieve its promised 7.3% investment return? Spoiler alert: there’s no evidence it did.
And there’s no published calculation proving Oportunitas ever met that target.
The latest audited accounts put the portfolio at £14.35 million. That’s substantial growth, although the increase reflects both property purchases and changes in property valuations.
The council has provided approximately £11.7 million in loans and investment capital over the company’s life. At March 2026, Oportunitas still owed £6.32 million in loans.
A valuable property portfolio is one thing. Turning that investment into a worthwhile financial return is another.
That works out at approximately £38 in interest expense for every £100 of expected rental income, before repairs, management fees and other costs.
Now, the council receives interest from Oportunitas. That’s income for FHDC, not simply money lost to taxpayers.
But the council must also account for its own financing costs. Interest received and genuine profit aren’t necessarily the same thing.
What has the council actually earned from Oportunitas since 2014, after its own costs are deducted?
That’s the figure taxpayers need to see.
More rent. Bigger bills. Less profit.
The latest audited accounts show turnover increasing from £754,937 in 2024/25 to £799,502 in 2025/26.
Sounds encouraging.
Unfortunately, the company’s administrative expenses rose much faster, jumping from £262,670 to £355,509. Repairs and maintenance alone increased from £75,387 to £137,548.
Council management charges also rose from £35,300 to £55,630.
Look at the trading surplus after interest.
If the forecast proves accurate, that’s an 80.9% fall in one year.
There’s an explanation for much of that fall. Oportunitas has budgeted £126,888 for major external repairs and redecorations during 2026/27.
Maintaining homes is essential. But at 30 September 2026, the company had recorded no expenditure against that budget, despite reporting a half-year trading surplus of £125,447. Other annual charges also hadn’t appeared in the half-year figures.
So which buildings need work? Have contracts been awarded? When will the repairs be completed?
And will £126,888 be enough?
Millions in property. But what about cash?
A company can own millions in property without having millions available to spend.
Oportunitas’s bank balance has fluctuated dramatically.
At March 2017, it held £1.33 million, alongside substantial short-term liabilities. By March 2021, the cash balance was £950,516. A year later, it had fallen to £32,085, during a period of significant property investment.
At March 2026, it had £158,948 in the bank. The forecast for March 2027 is £122,196.
These figures don’t mean the company is facing collapse. The auditors issued an unqualified opinion, and the board reports no immediate concerns about its ability to meet bills.
But its latest audited accounts also confirm that it had no accumulated profits legally available for dividends at March 2026. Its forecast dividend for 2026/27 is zero.
Four councillors. Where’s the scrutiny?
Oportunitas isn’t run by some distant private landlord.
Its directors are Councillor Rich Holgate, the company chairman, and Councillors Clive Goddard, Paul Thomas and John Wing.
According to the company’s own website, they’re responsible for managing the business, setting its strategy, maintaining its business plan and reporting to the council.
They also have legal responsibilities as company directors. And those responsibilities can come with payments.
Oportunitas’s audited financial schedule records £10,088 in directors’ remuneration for 2025/26.
The council’s 2024/25 allowances return separately identified Oportunitas payments, including £6,585 to former chairman James Butcher and £1,719 to Councillor Goddard. The 2025/26 allowances return no longer identifies Oportunitas payments separately from other special responsibility allowances.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with paying directors.
So who approved the arrangements, and where can taxpayers see what each director receives for Oportunitas duties?
Rose-tinted glasses don’t balance the books
In our 2022 investigation, Shepway Vox raised the Dunning–Kruger effect — when people overestimate their own abilities and fail to recognise their shortcomings.
Twelve years on, with profits shrinking, it’s worth asking whether those running Oportunitas are seeing the bigger picture.
Or are they simply looking through rose-tinted glasses, convinced everything is going swimmingly while the figures tell a different story?
When people have invested years in a project, they can become so convinced it’s working that they stop asking whether the original promises have been delivered. The safeguard is independent challenge, not confidence.
The published papers don’t establish that Oportunitas’s four directors have asked no questions. They may challenge management privately.
But where is the public evidence that they’ve tested the original 7.3% forecast, examined the rising costs or challenged the repair programme?
The 2014 arrangements envisaged regular Cabinet reporting, annual reports to Full Council and scrutiny. Are those original promises about accountability being met?
There’s also a £49,554 question
The audited accounts imply an accumulated realised deficit of £124,286 at March 2026, after removing unrealised property gains.
Yet the latest quarterly forecast starts with an accumulated operating loss of £74,732.
That’s a £49,554 difference.
The figures may use different accounting definitions. It isn’t evidence that money has disappeared, or that the accounts are wrong. But the published papers don’t reconcile them, and the council should explain the difference.
Twelve years. Where are the answers?
When Oportunitas was established in 2014, the council forecast a 7.3% return on its investment. Its original housing plans also assumed a roughly equal mix of homes rented at Local Housing Allowance levels and market rents.
Twelve years later, where’s the evidence that those promises have been delivered?
The company now owns 75 homes. How many meet the original affordability aims? How many are rented at market rates? And, most importantly, what return has the council actually earned on taxpayers’ money?
The 7.3% figure was an internal rate of return (IRR), measuring the expected return over the life of the investment. It wasn’t a promise to pay the council 7.3% in cash every year.
The chart below illustrates what a 7.3% annual compounded return would look like over twelve years. It isn’t Oportunitas’s actual financial performance. To establish that, FHDC needs to publish the full investment figures, including money invested, income received, costs and the value of its remaining investment.
The question is simple. After twelve years, has Oportunitas achieved the return councillors were originally told to expect? The answer is quelled surprise: NO
But Dr Susan Priest, now the council’s Chief Executive, who helped establish Oportunitas, and its four councillor-directors should be able to explain whether the company has delivered what was promised.
The Shepway Vox Team has investigated Oportunitas repeatedly. We’ve examined its borrowing, property valuations, trading results and postponed dividends.
This time, it’s about something even more fundamental.
The promises made. The money invested. The people responsible. And the results delivered.
Twelve years. Nearly £12 million in council capital funding. Seventy-five homes. Four councillor-directors. And a chief executive who helped set the business up.
Oportunitas has built a sizeable property portfolio.
But has it delivered what the council promised in 2014?
