Meeting documents

The Fraud and Data Manager presented the report as detailed in the agenda she advised the committee that since attending the Audit Committee last year, it had now been confirmed that from 1^st June 2015, the investigation of benefit fraud would transfer over to the Single Fraud Investigation Service (SFIS) run by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). From then on, all current and future fraud investigations involving housing benefit (HB) and historical council tax benefit (CTB) would be run by SFIS.  After the transfer, there would be considerable residual counter fraud work remaining at SSDC which would need to be resourced.

The Fraud and Data Manager informed members that a meeting had recently been held between SSDC, Taunton Deane and West Somerset Councils regarding the proposed match funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG).  To date, only SSDC had made any additional in house provision for counter fraud work funding. On the whole the meeting had been positive; although further work was needed to clarify what roles would stay within the Authority and the role that SWAP would carry out as different skill sets were required.

The Assistant Director Finance and Corporate Services explained that there would have to be a clear contractual arrangement between SSDC and SWAP an update report would be presented to Audit Committee members in 3 months’ time.

In response to member’s questions the Assistant Director Finance and Corporate Services and the Fraud and Data Manager replied that:

·         The names of fraudulent claimants were already sent to the Western Gazette for publication;

·         The legal costs of prosecuting offenders was high, evidence was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt;

·         Levying fines was cheaper than prosecution and SSDC could keep any fines collected;

·         There was not enough resource to prosecute all offenders but benefit could be ended if evidence showed the claim was wrongly claimed

·         With reference to Corporate Fraud, prevention was better than detection, managers needed to be made more aware;

·         More resource was required in order to be able to highlight fraud in the first instance;

·         Regular annual audits of income collections were carried out;

·         It was hoped that all staff would eventually have Fraud Awareness training possibly by way of an electronic module; the corporate system ‘Netconsent’ was being introduced whereby unless training had been completed a user could be prevented from accessing the computer.

In conclusion the chairman thanked the Fraud Intern for the work he had carried out in drafting the new Counter Fraud policy and hoped his placement might be extended as the skills he had learnt were invaluable to SSDC. 

Audit Committee members were content to note the key issues around resourcing of counter fraud work in the future but recommended that resources were increased to ensure the staffing structure was sustainable when the current staff transferred to SFIS and the government funding ended. 

RESOLVED: That the Audit Committee:

1)    Noted the key issues around the resourcing of counter fraud work in the future and recommended that resources were reviewed in due course to ensure the staffing structure was sustainable when the current staff transferred to SFIS and the government funding ended. 

2)   Noted the update on the delivery of the Counter Fraud Action Plan