Mobile phone bills have shot up at Warwick District Council after more departments received new handsets last year.
The authority racked up more than £21,000 worth of voice calls, photo messages and emails last year after issuing 200 mobile phones to staff across 14 departments.
According to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the total bill
appears almost three times higher than the previous year.
But the council says the increase is due to a financial reorganisation - more departments now record their phone bills, leading to an apparent jump in spending.
It has admitted that its costs have risen under more expensive data tariffs including email services and photo messaging.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?We'd like to hear your views on this story. You can send us your comments by simply clicking on this email. Please give a reason if you do not wish your email address to be published.
This is what I thinkThe neighbourhood services department alone spent £8,300 last year - higher than the total council phone bill recorded in 2007.
Staff in the department spent £213 each on average over the year on calls, while those in housing received 69 phones and spent almost £5,000 in total.
Five departments received more handsets this year, as part of a council effort to introduce 'mobile working' and save money.
Council spokesman Richard Brooker said: "The tariffs we pay include data and voice calls. We've taken advantage of handsets with email access and cameras.
"It is more expensive, but if an officer is out and about and can take photos of the local grot spot and send them to the waste management team with one device, they don't have to return to the office.
"It's a faster response time. The ultimate aim of mobile working is to save time and money."
Mr Brooker added that the council received special rates to keep costs down, and that they would decrease this year when data tariffs become cheaper.
The authority did not disclose the identity of its service provider.
Freedom of Information officer Peter Bolt said: "To prevent the possibility of hacking, we do not name our supplier publicly for security reasons."