Agenda item

Amanda Stanislawski, Audit Manager:

a)    presented a report to update committee on the performance against the 2024/25 Counter Fraud Work Plan and the outcomes of pro-active fraud work and investigations

b)    summarised the number of fraud cases during 2024/25 compared to the previous year as detailed at Appendix A

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 3.3 of the report

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

·       Housing Benefit/ Council Tax Support

·       Council Tax – Single Person Discount/ Empty Properties

·       NNDR

·       Housing Tenancy

·       Payroll and Human Resources

·       Finance

·       Elections

·       Information Technology

·       Other Fraud/Fraud Attempts

e)    invited questions and comments from members of the Committee.

Members discussed the content of the report, commented, asked questions and received relevant responses from officers as follows:

Question: Reference was made to housing tenancy fraud at paragraph 4.4 of Appendix A on page 356 of the agenda pack. How soon was the audit that had been paused in July due to recommence and what was the expected end date?

Response: A response to the question would be circulated further to the meeting.

Question: Was time lost due to working from home, an issue for the Council?

Response: Only one disciplinary had taken place due to time management. The issue was not caused by duplicate employment and nothing else had been identified.

Question: It was possible in the absence of physical presence within a building, that duplicate employment could take place. Additionally, officers could have worked too many hours.  At the commencement of employment with the Council, how was duplicate employment discovered and how was the issue dealt with?

Response: Employees are required to complete a secondary employment form in which it was required that duplicate employment was declared. It could be the case that such duplication arose from evening or voluntary work. It was the responsibility of line management to ensure that staff were contactable, and the output of staff appropriately measured and monitored through regular appraisals and 1-2-1’s. Managers had not raised issues through Human Resources (HR) and monitoring took place through assurance work. There was a risk fraud may occur however based on the assurance work that had been carried out so far, it had not been identified as an issue.

Question:  Reference was made to Council Tax, in particular single person discount fraud. Did any work take place regarding student Council Tax discount? In the case of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) if one resident ceased to be a student within the academic year or continued to live within a HMO post-graduation, were there any checks to ensure that fraud to the Council was not committed?

Response: A response to the question would be requested from Martin Walmsley, Assistant Director - Shared Revenues & Benefits, further to the meeting.

Question: Reference was made to Environmental Fraud. Could additional examples be provided of how environmental fraud took place?

Response: Further information on Environmental Fraud would be circulated by officers to members further to the meeting.

Comment: Environmental audits were published on an annual basis at other authorities. It was likely that there was the equivalent for City of Lincoln Council, but it may not necessary be presented to Audit Committee.

Question: Was there a reason why there had been no prosecution for individuals that had defrauded the Council?

Response: A response would be circulated further to the meeting.

Question: Reference was made to potentially fraudulent payments through the online system for the payment of Council Tax at paragraph 4.6 of Appendix A on page 357 of the agenda pack. Could an explanation be provided of what a fraudulent payment was?

Response: A potentially fraudulent payment through the online system for the payment of Council Tax applied when a card was used which was found not to belong to the person who attempted to make the payment. The owners of the cards had contacted their card provider who then cancelled the payments. The Council’s bank then informed finance of the cancelled payments.

RESOLVED that:

1)    Responses to questions received from members be circulated by officers further to the meeting.

2)    The contents of the report be accepted and noted with thanks.