Agenda item
Anti- Fraud and Corruption Strategy and Proactive Anti -Fraud Plan 2013-14
- Meeting of Standards Advisory Committee, Thursday, 24th October, 2013 7.30 p.m. (Item 4.4)
- View the background to item 4.4
To note the contents of the report.
Minutes:
The Head of Audit and Risk Management presented the report on behalf of the Corporate Anti-Fraud Manager and highlighted the following:
- the work of the antifraud team was delivered through activities directed by the priorities of the Anti-Fraud strategy
- the antifraud plan sought to ensure that resources were adequately deployed and indicated where resources would be allocated
- anti-fraud work involved detection and prevention. The Council was looking to use prevention more effectively by publicising successful actions
- detection activities have been strengthened by the recruitment of additional staff in the Corporate Anti-Fraud Team
There was an extensive discussion of the anti-fraud work reported and, in response to Members’ questions, the following information was provided:
- re: comparative levels of preventative and reactive anti-fraud activities: - the Committee was advised that most activities were reactive but preventative work comprised 10-15% of the total. Since the enactment of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act, it was a criminal offence to sublet social housing therefore the Council was able to prosecute any persons caught doing so and raise an order against profits made. This power was an effective deterrent
- Primary Care Trusts had been disbanded and could no longer participate in the Anti-Fraud Forum: - Members were advised that the Forum structure remained broad enabling maximum opportunities for sharing intelligence and for joint working
- all types of fraud whether commercial or domestic were investigated by the Council where such activity was discovered
- when investigating housing benefit fraud, data from the Electoral Register was used for data-matching
- re: levels of fraud indicated by data published at Appendix 2: - the Committee was informed that the data did not indicate total fraud but the Council’s response to the biggest fraud areas. On account of limited Council resources, antifraud work was targeted at high risk areas
- re: the effectiveness of Council's work in reducing Blue Badge parking fraud: - the Committee was informed that the Council's level of work and success rate was comparable to other local authorities. Additionally there was good data exchange between London authorities enabling Blue Badge parking fraud perpetrated in other boroughs by Tower Hamlets residents to be traced and vice- versa
- re: query on the number of days taken to investigate frauds reported in Appendix 2: - the Committee was informed that the data reported was an average number of days employed in the anti-fraud investigations stated in the report
- re: whether whistleblowing management referrals and proactive contingency was subject to Freedom of Information requests: - the Committee was informed that whistleblowers were protected once a referral was made. These referrals were one-off interventions and as such each was individually assessed and investigated
-
re:
whether the Council was adequately resourced to meet risks arising
from greater local discretions enabled through recent legislation:
- the Committee was advised that the resource that would be
allocated was dependent on the level of risk created. Because of limited resources, the Council was
required to decide where its money was best spent. Additionally any procedure that the Council
adopted to deliver its services also affected the degree of risk
created.
- The Council took part in the National Anti-Fraud Initiative that was administered by the Audit Commission and received advice on potential risk areas. The initiative allowed significant data to be shared with the Audit Commission and the data matches returned were utilised ever more extensively.
- There was now a voluntary "36 Hub" in which London authorities provided three datasets for matching with other authorities. The data sets that Council would share this year were: Council Tax and student letting data to investigate if there was any council tax fraud related to student lettings.
- performance levels were measured by benchmarking data sets with other local authorities. Services of the Audit Commission were used to benchmark Tower Hamlets’ performance against other authorities employing the same or similar datasets.
Resolved
That the report be noted
Supporting documents:
- Anti Fraud Strategy & Plan DG1510131200pm, item 4.4 PDF 284 KB
- Anti Fraud Strategy & Plan Appx 2 TQ1410131558pm, item 4.4 PDF 81 KB