Agenda item

The report sets out a summary of the counter fraud activity undertaken for the period 1^st April to 30^th September 2022.

Darren Armstrong, Head of Audit & Investigation introduced the report which summarised the counter fraud activity that the Council had undertaken from 1^st April to 30^th September 2022.

 In considering the report the Committee noted:

·             That the report covered multiple fraud types that included internal fraud and whistleblowing, external fraud, tenancy and social housing fraud, and the proactive activity undertaken to identify and reduce fraud.

·             The details provided in relation to internal fraud which, whilst typically having the fewest referrals, were often more complex in nature as detailed in Table A within Section 3.1 of the report.

·             The update provided in relation to Tenancy & Social Housing Fraud with the recovery of social housing properties by the Counter Fraud team providing a positive impact upon the temporary accommodation budget as the average value of each recovered tenancy was approximately £93,000 per property, therefore this area of fraud remained a high priority area for the Counter Fraud team to manage.

·             The update provided in relation to External Fraud, which had seen an increase in the number of cases opened in the reporting period (127 cases) against the same period last year (79 cases) much of which related to Blue Badge and parking permit referrals. Further details of the figures related to external fraud were detailed within Table C Section 3.11 of the report.

·             The team continued to undertake a broad range of proactive activity including National Fraud Initiative (NFI) data matching, fraud workshops and targeted operations to support the identification, investigation and reduction in fraud.

The Committee was then invited to raise questions on the report which have been summarised below:

·             In relation to Blue Badge thefts, the Committee queried if there were plans to digitalise blue badges to mitigate further blue badge theft and fraud.  Officers confirmed that this remained an area under constant review, however they were not aware of any specific proposals at present in terms of digitalisation.

·             The Committee queried if the recruitment issues detailed in the report were exclusively internal issues and if the same level of employment checks were undertaken for Brent contractors. The Committee were advised that the cases in the report related to internal recruitment referrals, adding that as part of internal audit procedures a review was recently undertaken to review agency and contractors workforce to provide assurance of recruitment and vetting procedures for agencies.

·             In relation to concern regarding the level of certain cases relating to rent arrears, the Committee were assured that where an investigation was completed, a report with recommendations (where necessary) would be produced for management response which would then be kept under review in order to avoid similar issues in the future.

·             The Committee required clarification as to how Brent’s fraud activity compared with other boroughs. In response the Committee were advised that it was challenging to benchmark counter fraud activity against other boroughs due to the number of variables to consider in terms of the level and quality of referrals received. The Committee were assured that discussions regularly took place with other London boroughs counter fraud teams to identify specific trends and patterns. Where these were identified, mitigations were put in place to challenge and reduce the specific areas identified.

·             The Committee required clarification on the difference between fraud related issues and enforcement related issues in terms of Brent’s counter fraud activity. It was clarified that the Council held specific statutory powers to manage enforcement issues, whereas cases of fraud were not as clear cut. In terms of the consequences, enforcement could see considerable costs awarded via fines issued however fraud cases would usual result in criminal prosecution.

·             It was noted that referrals for fraud cases involving social housing sub-lets were at a high level, however figures suggested that 90% of referrals were not progressed and were closed after initial enquiries had been made. The Committee queried the impact a possible investigation would have on residents where it was later found to be unnecessary to proceed further. In response officers advised that not every case was a full investigation with discreet enquiries being sought initially, therefore residents were unlikely to be negatively impacted by this.

·             The Committee welcomed the action taken to ensure the Counter Fraud team was now fully staffed and positive impact this was having in the delivery of effective robust counter fraud actions.  It was felt this was indicative of the high value that Brent placed on effective counter fraud systems.

·             The Committee were advised that the fraud team continued to explore the market to seek any new technology that would enhance the service by increasing opportunities for identifying fraud.

As no further issues were raised the Chair thanked officers for their hard work and efforts in relation to the ongoing delivery of counter fraud activity and it was RESOLVED to note the contents of the report and counter fraud activity undertaken from April – September 2022.