Agenda item
Quarterly Assurance Report
To
1. note the contents of the quarterly assurance report and
2. take account of the assurance opinion assigned to the systems reviewed during the period.
Minutes:
The Head of Risk Management and Audit presented the Quarterly Assurance Report, which summarized the work of the Internal Audit period December 2014 to February 2015.
The Committee heard that;
· 16 Audits were undertaken
· 2 were assigned Full Assurance, these were the Housing Rents and Management and Control of In-house Temporary Resource Service.
· 8 were assigned Substantial Assurance.
· 6 were assigned Limited Assurance
· 9 out of 10 recommendations had already been implemented.
Management and Control of On-Street Parking Income
The audit found that there were no contract specific procedures covering collection of cash income, monitoring and reconciliation of cash income with audit rolls.
The contract monitoring procedures and how to pay contracts needed updating.
Jamie Blake informed the Committee that during the last audit, Management and Control of On-Street Parking Income had been assigned Substantial Assurance but since there have been many staff changes.
The Committee were told that there was still a substantial amount of income still in cash and the controls in place were no longer effective.
Youth Connexions
The weaknesses identified from the audit were that DBS checks for 17 of the 224 staff within Youth Services had expired. In addition, no DBS records could be evidenced for a further 23 staff.
The Committee were informed that was a process in place already to check all departments were up to date with regards to DBS checks as well as to ensure the process was being carried out correctly.
Dinar Hossain, informed the Committee that at the time of the audit the 17 individuals with expired DBS’s had not been provided by Tower Hamlets.
Bishop Challoner was updated every 10 years as opposed to 3 years.
Some DBS forms had already been dispatched but they had not been completed and handed back to human resources and it was up to the individual employee to do this.
Dinar informed the Committee that he had written to all employees concerned, informing them of a specified time in which the DBS forms had to be completed and sent back and if employees failed to do this, they would face a potential freeze in their salaries or disciplinary action would be taken if not handed back at all.
Information Governance Training:
The Committee were told that 17 employees had completed the training with exception of 1 member of staff due to being on maternity leave.
Electronic Home care:
The Committee were told that this had been assigned Limited Assurance as the system used had not been fully utilized by all service providers and that there was a manual system in operation as well as an electronic one.
It had been difficult for management to keep a track of payment and some had been delayed.
The Council ceased using the IT system referred to in the report in September 2014 and the contract came to an end on 31st December 2014. Agilysis have procured a new solution on the Council’s behalf 9supplied by a company called Ulysses) and the Council is currently working on its implementation.
Dorne Kanareck informed the Committee that the new system should have been tested longer. Dorne Kanareck had taken over in September 2014 and since had reverted back to paper invoices.
The Committee heard that the new system was being tested before going live. Training is being provided to members of staff already and there is a report documenting exactly what went wrong with the previous system.
Tower Hamlets Homes
This audit followed up recommendations made at the conclusion of the original audit finalized in July 2013. It had been assigned Limited Assurance.
The committee heard;
· The testing showed that out of the two priority recommendations made in the original report, both had been progressed.
· Of the six medium priority recommendations, five had been progressed
The Committee were also told that there needed to be more formal and rigorous training in place when people first joined the service.
Kevin S Jones informed the Committee that a number of actions were already underway and staff would be trained accordingly.
Monitoring of MSG
With regards to this audit the Committee were informed that the directorate of Communities Localities and Culture needed improvement.
The operational systems had not been as robust and the reliance was on desktop exercises to evaluate organizations. The audit trail relating to payments to organizations were found to be poor and payments made did not reflect outcome.
The Committee also heard that since the last audit committee recommendations had already been applied and a governance system was in place. Desktop monitoring was no longer being used extensively, only for those organizations which had been allocated less than £5,000
29 organizations had been agreed to the new governance system and 6 had been terminated. Organizations were being researched to see how compliance could be improved.
It was recommended that all officers administering MSG receive training and this was carried out on 19th February.
Tele-care services:
This service, provided mainly to adults was assigned Limited Assurance. It is a service free of charge. The audit found that the service was operating under difficult conditions as it was not fully funded and due to shortage of staff. Assessment of adults using the service was not well documented with audit trail being poo, procedures needed updating.
The Committee heard that tele-care services historically had never been fully funded to reflect the service.
The Committee were told that a spreadsheet had been implemented which was monitored quarterly to monitor how calls were processed.
In response to Members questions the Committee were told that;
· There was no funding to provide cover for staff who were on leave or off sick
· And the department has had to bring in people from outside to maintain the service
Bulk Rubbish
The main objectives of the audit were to assure management as to whether the systems of control around the Bulk Rubbish Collection system are sound, secure and adequate, and also to evaluate the potential consequences which could arise from any weaknesses in internal control procedures.
The Committee heard that the main weaknesses identified were, that there was no confirmation being obtained by the Council that people requesting collections are in receipt of Housing Benefit and therefore not required to pay the £15 fee.
The review of the contract between Veolia and the Council did not identify any key performance indicators (KPIs) against which the performance of Veolia can be monitored.
RESOLVED
That the contents of the report be noted.
Supporting documents: