Issue - meetings

(Report of the Director of Corporate Resources). The report seeks authority for Thurrock Council to prosecute offences relating to benefits issued by Haringey Council and seeks agreement for Haringey Council to accept authority to prosecute for offences relating to benefits issued by Islington Council.

The report also seeks approval to give delegated authority to the Head of Audit and Risk Management to institute fraud prosecutions on behalf of other Local Authorities and to authorise other Local Authorities to institute fraud prosecutions on behalf of Haringey Council.

The Leader considered a report, which sought agreement to authorise Thurrock Council to prosecute offences relating to benefits issued by Haringey Council. The report also sought approval to accept authority from Islington Council to prosecute for offences relating to benefits issued by Islington Council.

In addition the report also sought delegated authority to be given to the Head of Audit and Risk Management to institute fraud prosecutions on behalf of other local authorities and to authorise other local authorities to institute fraud prosecutions on behalf of Haringey Council.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to agreement as to the fair apportionment of costs by the Head of Audit and Risk Management, it be agreed that:

1. Authorisation be given to Thurrock Council to prosecute offences relating to benefits issued by Haringey Council.

2. Authority be accepted from Islington Council for Haringey Council to prosecute for offences relating to benefits issues by Islington Council.

3. Delegated authority be given to the Head of Audit and Risk Management to institute fraud prosecutions on behalf of other local authorities.

4. Delegated authority be given to the Head of Audit and Risk Management to institute fraud prosecutions on behalf of Haringey Council.

Alternative options considered

Each local authority may prosecute only for benefits issued by it. This would, however, mean that a joint investigation would be followed by separate legal proceedings in different courts, which is not beneficial to the tax payer at large, neither from an efficiency point of view, nor from giving an impression that fraudsters can potentially avoid the true extent of their fraud being realised by prosecuting individual offences in different courts.  

Reasons for decision

To prevent the need for different sets of legal proceedings arising out of the same or similar facts; and to send a message to fraudsters that different local authorities that issues benefits are working together.