Agenda item

John Scott, Audit Manager:

a)    presented an update to Audit Committee on outstanding audit recommendations and recommendations over 12 months old, with the ability at the meeting to request managers to provide further feedback

b)    referred to Appendix A attached to his report which provided details of the relevant audits, outstanding recommendations/agreed actions and the current position/explanation from the service manager

c)    invited members’ questions and comments.

Question: What were the reasons for extended deadlines, was this due to lack of staff?

Audit Manager Response: There were differing reasons including prioritisation, issues cropping up, and some recommendations taking longer than anticipated to complete. Members could ask relevant managers to attend Audit Committee to give greater context to any problem areas.

Comment: It had been hoped that the final recommendation to complete the Boultham Park Restoration Project would have been nearer completion, now extended to February 2020. There were lessons to be learnt moving forward with another contract soon to commence for the park. Some areas of the scheme on the ground had not realised their potential. It was important that projects were finalised before scheme managers moved on. Performance Scrutiny Committee would be asking for a Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the project.

Audit Manager Response: The problem here related to delay in the signing of the Partnership Agreement for Boultham Park Refurbishment Project. The relevant officer had previously attended Audit Committee to report on the reasoning behind the delay.

Chief Finance Officer Response: The audit had looked at specific parts of the Boultham Park project in relation to the partnership agreement only. A PIR would be completed on the whole project once finalised. It could be presented to Audit Committee if required. The Audit Team did not have the resources to complete a full audit of the entire scheme.

The Chief Finance Officer updated Audit Committee in relation to the outstanding audit recommendation in respect of the Code of Corporate Governance. She confirmed that there was an existing Asset Management Plan in place, however due to the vacant Property Services Manager post there was currently a lack of capacity for it to be updated .This task would be completed once the post was filled.

Simon Colburn, Assistant Director, Health and Environmental Services, updated Audit Committee in relation to the outstanding audit recommendation Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Licensing and Hazards, covering the following main points:

·         He was disappointed that the audit in June 2018 had only achieved limited assurance, however, at the time there had been a high turnover in staff together with changes in legislation which had involved extra workload

·         The Health and Environment Enforcement Policy had been completely rewritten, due to go to Policy Scrutiny Committee on 8 October 2019. This policy brought together groups of different legislation and new enforcement to allow landlords to be fined directly.

·         Investment in I.T infrastructure had been implemented to allow landlords to apply for HMO registration directly at the ‘front end’.

·         A new coding structure had been introduced so that different codes could be used to record hazards and categories, to enable monitoring and reporting to be undertaken.

·         New performance measures were being introduced to form part of the performance management framework.

Members raised questions in relation to outstanding audit recommendations, particularly those over a year old, which received relevant responses as follows:

Question: Did dual registration of a normal house also as a HIMO have implications in terms of its administration?

Response: There was more impact on the planning team than his. There was improved information sharing between the two services with approximately an additional dozen applications from the Planning Section to come forward at the present time. He would double check this figure and report back to members accordingly.

Question: Were applications coming from letting agents as well as from landlords?

Response: There was a role for letting agents. The council was able to take action on whoever was responsible for allowing properties to fall into disrepair. This included letting agencies if they were responsible for checking the health and safety of the property. He added that his staff primarily focused on landlord properties with poor inspections, however this could be extended to letting agencies should a trend be identified.

Question: Were there enough staff on the ground now to cope with new legislation.

Response: There were currently 15 members of staff trained up to BTEC qualification level. On the whole the service was in a better position. Recruitment for a Team Leader was out for advertisement following which there would be a full complement of staff.

Comment: It would be useful to know why staff chose to move on.

Response: The service manager was currently carrying out a piece of work to make sure a satisfactory training matrix was in place for staff and that they felt valued. It may be that staff moved on to the private sector once qualified. The service was now in a better place.

John Scott, Audit Manager, asked and received confirmation from members that they had no questions to refer back to officers in respect of the outstanding Audit recommendation regarding Tenancy Services.

RESOLVED that updates on Audit Recommendations older than 12 months be noted.