Agenda item

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 7 March 2024 as a correct record.

To review the Action Tracker.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2024 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

As part of the Action Tracker, Mr Jonathan Kirby, Director of Placemaking & Housing, Ms Sarah Lavery, Head of Property Change and Mr Andrew Meek, Assistant Director for Capital Projects & Property, presented a verbal update on the commercial properties audit. Mr Kirby and Mr Meek stated that a full report would be submitted at a future Audit Committee. A previous audit that had been carried out had received a nil assurance. Since the previous audit, a limited assurance had been attained. This showed progress in a positive direction of systems and processes being put in place. There was an aim to progress to ‘full Assurance’. An upcoming report would demonstrate that across the large number of action areas, good progress was being made, but more needed to be done. A lot of work was being done with debt, arrears and engaging with tenants in order to deal with expired or held-over leases and renew them. The progress was quite significant in that area. There was also some good progress in some of the safety aspects. There were four recommendations including a general health and safety recommendation, fire safety and other safety aspects. This would be addressed through the process of renewing leases. One of the difficult areas was around managing the data. There was a recommendation about the management of data which was at the heart of managing property. The acquisition of a new property management system was key to be able to manage the data better. Not as much progress had been made in relation to this. Taking stock of the Council's overall financial situation and ensuring that a robust business case was in place to support the acquisition of a new system had taken priority. This had an affect across other areas.

In response to questions, Mr Kirby and Mr Meek stated that:

·         The data was held in different systems and was not always consistent. Some of it was of lower quality. Sometimes, certain data was not present such as the detail of conditions contained within a lease. This could be in a paper document and a new system could assist in marshalling the data.

·         The property review split into three distinct areas. One was data cleansing and data gathering, one was the procurement of a property management system in which to store that data and the third was around delivering improved policies and strategies for the property assets. It was important to prove the business case that cleansing and collecting data in a sensible way would help. In the intervening period, the Council was prioritising events that happened through the property cycle. Where contingent liabilities had arisen or there were other major reviews, this would be dealt with and the data would be stored in an appropriate way so that when the case for a new system was made (and to review the property data), the exercise would have already been done for a specific property.

·         The progress was not a something that would be done quickly and some of the dates highlighted for when things would be completed were in 2026. Currently good results were being obtained from the progress made so far.

As part of the Action Tracker, Ms Beverley Tarka, Director of Adults, Health & Communities, Ms Jo Baty, Service Director, Adult Social Services, presented a verbal update on the Aids and Adaptation audit. They stated that the relevant audit areas were policies and procedures for the service, quality and effectiveness, funding allocation and procurement of contractors. There was one fundamental recommendation to do with procurement of contractors. Other recommendations were also made. The fundamental recommendation was about the absence of documented process to award contracts. In relation to this, a deadline had been given of June 2025, but quite significant progress had been made. The Council was developing a call off within the dynamic purchasing system. This was a system that enabled the management of interest from various different providers in various different areas procured. A competitive process was created to determine what suppliers could provide best value for money. The specification was already in draft form and was nearing completion and the pricing schedules had been developed. Once the procurement call-off process was complete, it would limit the number of providers used for adaptations. This would enable the Council to maintain quality in a stronger way. The Council expected to go out to the market in January 2025 and implement the call-off by the end of March 2025. In relation to the other recommendations which were consistent completion of occupational therapy (OT) assessments, which were not always fully evidenced, since the audit, the Council had implemented a new case management system and streamlined processes so that no referral could be made to the Adaptations team without the sign off of an OT assessment. Invoice approvals and reconciliation was not consistently retained or documented. Now, invoices could not be approved without the sign off of the Adaptations team manager. A spreadsheet was monitored and maintained for this. On policy and procedures, it was found that there was an absence of an up-to date and detailed policy and procedure within the service. The Adaptations manager was in the process of updating the policy against the national and local legislation policy and guidance. The deadline for all of the above was February 2025, so a steady progress was being made. There was a lack of awareness of the process to prioritise cases and to escalate Adaptation cases. Therefore, the service implemented a monitoring of waiting lists and the length of time that the occupational therapist and the surveys were held, so it was possible to track more efficiently. A program board had been put in place to have some oversight. The waiting list had reduced to 60. Previously it was over 220 cases. Progress of staff was being monitored so that staff dealing with more complex cases could get more support. Reflective practices were also carried out to increase staff confidence. In relation to incomplete processes ensuring funding of Aids and Adaptations covered maintenance. This area applied only to specialist equipment. Warranties for specialist equipment were in place for five years. If the resident lived in a Council property, in the case of privately owned rented or housing association tenants, at the end of the five-year period, if the resident wished to renew or update a warranty, then they were responsible themselves for the extension. This was considered the difference between Council tenants and private tenants. The service had also been asked to look more at monitoring of costs. Since the completion of the audit, the manager had put in place a process to monitor and track costs. This was reported into the program board. A panel was used to approve works over £30,000 to give assurance of an oversight of the more costly packages.

In response to questions, Ms Tarka, Ms Baty and Ms Taryn Eves, Director of Finance, stated that:

·         In relation to the Program Board, the Council might involve community representatives to strengthen perspective on areas of progress. In relation to the Board’s assurance and oversight, it would be useful to think about how some of the queries from councillors were addressed. Many of them often were in relation to residents dealing with multiple complexity. Their issues were not just around Aids and Adaptation. More use of the Program Board could be made and improvements could be made to reduce emails which took up a lot of time. External checks from community groups would also be useful.

·         The relevant Cabinet Member (the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care, and Wellbeing) was regularly briefed on the progress being made.

·         In terms of reconciliation of payments, there was a tiered authorisation process within the service. The sign off of the Adaptations team manager was required and that was only given after the surveyor had inspected the works that had been carried out. Assurance, in terms of invoice sign off, rested with the service. As to Audit's role, the process was mainly done within the service, but was usually capital spend so Finance would see the monitoring. Finance worked closely with all services including Adult Social Care. When looking at the monthly monitoring, the spend coming through the finance system would be monitored. In terms of the decision making and the director reconciliation, this was all maintained within the service.

·         If there were any concerns with any service, then it would be raised directly with the service to gain any assurance needed. However, lots of decisions were taken within a service and those decisions were taken in line with the policies and process. Any concerns raised would be followed-up directly.

Mr Minesh Jani, Head of Audit & Risk Management, stated that the Council had a follow up arrangements where internal audit, independent of the service, would provide an assurance level. There were two levels of assurance; assurances from the service directly and assurance from internal audit.