Agenda item

The Committee received a report from the Head of Audit and Risk Management which detailed the work undertaken by the Counter-Fraud Team for Quarter 1, ending 30^th June 2018.The following arose from the discussion of the report:

a.    The Committee raised concerns around the counter-fraud team’s involvement in NRPF investigations. In response, officers advised that historically the counter-fraud team have had different levels of involvement with NRPF. At present the team only get involved in exceptional circumstances, rather than as a matter of course. Representatives from the Home Office also used to attend the interviews but this was no longer the case.

b.    The Committee urged that the whole process of determining who had NRPF needed to be done carefully, particularly in terms of those who had accessed welfare benefits in the past and those that could theoretically be in receipt of tax credits, which were calculated annually. The Committee raised concerns about the ensuring that the process was lawful and the potential for a Judicial Review to be held.

c.    The Committee sought assurances around what the referral process was for suspected instances of fraud and what mechanisms were in place to prevent vexatious claims. Officers advised that referrals could be made via a dedicated telephone line, letter or email and could be done on an anonymous basis. A number of referrals were officer-led. The fraud team had a two-stage process, which included an initial assessment of the veracity of claims first of all.

d.    In response to a question around how the fraud team prioritised its resources, officers acknowledged that resources were limited and advised that a risk-based approach was adopted. There were particular areas identified as high risk nationally, through the National Fraud Initiative and this was combined with an assessment of the local risk profile to target work in specific areas. The Committee was advised that pensions had recently been identified as a high-risk area by the NFI.

e.    The Committee sought assurance around why fraud investigations around lock changes were concentrated in the west of the Borough, in spite of there being more instances in the east. In response, officers advised that this was largely in response to previous concerns raised around an overall concentration of resources in the east. It was acknowledged that this decision could be reviewed going forward.

f.     In relation to a query around the performance targets for counter-fraud activity, officers acknowledged that the targets would be reviewed at year-end if it was felt that the target was too low.

g.    In relation to a query around employee malfeasance, the Committee was advised that this was very difficult to monitor through a planned audit programme. Instead, the best way to detect such instances of fraud was through the whistle blowing process.

h.    The Committee enquired about whether fraud investigations were targeted at particular demographics, for example particular ethnic groups. The Head of Audit and Risk Management advised that monitoring statics for different demographic groups were not kept and reiterated that fraud investigations were determined by a risk-based approach. Any consideration of other factors would undermine that risk based approach.

i.      The Chair acknowledged the above point but suggested that keeping a record of the ethnicity of cases would be useful in determining whether vexatious claims were made based on race/ethnicity.

j.      The Chair commented that a reminder to all staff about the Council’s whistle blowing policy was overdue. The Head of Risk and Audit acknowledged that a reminder was due. (Action: Minesh Jani). 

RESOLVED

That the Corporate Committee noted the counter-fraud work completed in the quarter (1) to 30 June 2018.