Agenda item

Amanda Stanislawski, Audit Manager:

a.    presented a report to update Audit Committee on the performance against the 2022/23 Counter Fraud Work Plan and the outcomes of pro-active fraud work and investigations

b.    summarised the number of fraud cases during 2022/23 compared to the previous year and advised that overall, there had been a general reduction in cases with the exception of NFI where the 2022 exercise had resulted in a significant increase from 322 to 622 for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction (HB/CTR). The 2020 NFI exercise had resulted in 27 errors being identified with HB/CTR saving £39, 351, with an additional £39,076 currently being recovered. There had not been a review of Single Person Discounts undertaken this year.

c.    gave an overview of the progress that had been made against completing the actions within the Counter Fraud Action Plan as detailed at paragraph 2.2 of the report

d.    further updated members on the following areas of work that had been undertaken as detailed within the report:

·         Whistleblowing Referrals in Relation to Housing Benefit, Housing Tenancy and Single Person Discount

·         Cyber Crime

·         Housing Tenancy

·         Counter Fraud Risk Register

e.    invited members questions and comments.

Question:  Asked how the Council identified fraud in relation to single person discount.

Response: There were a range of methods. A contract with Lincolnshire County Council and the other Districts was being procured to undertake rolling single person discount reviews, this would look at information from credit agencies, mail shots and they would also undertake data matching exercises.

Question: Referred to payroll and resources and asked if the fraudulent attempt to change a member of staffs bank details was related to a previous cyber-attack in relation to phishing emails.

Response: The previous cyber-attack was unsuccessful. They did not harvest passwords and the individual affected immediately changed their password. The only information harvested were corporate email addresses which were already easily available. The individual affected was advised to check that all of their personal data was in order.

Question: Further asked if the attempt to change bank details was made from a corporate email address?

Response: It was requested from a home email address.

Comment: Referred to photographic ID in relation to elections and commented that it could potentially be a deterrent for voting and that electors needed to be made aware of future changes to postal votes.

Question: Referred to the fraud risk register and asked if the purchase order system was audited.

Response: Yes, the purchase order system was audited.

Question: Commented that invoicing and matching purchase orders had a low target and a low achievement rate and expressed concern that 39% of invoices did not have the authority to make a purchase.

Response: It was best practice to provide a purchase order when placing an order, however, if a purchase order was not provided it did not mean that the purchase was not authorised. A system of delegation was in place according to the financial procedure rules and purchases could be made and authorised according to the delegation. It was re-iterated that although it was best practice to provide a purchase order, if one was not provided,  it did not mean that purchases were being made without authority.

RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.