Appendix S2:
Fraud casework

Background

We looked at the way Thanet deals with fraud casework. This examination primarily looked at:

  • the quality of investigation case files, in particular with regard to WBS claims
  • available management tools and management information on fraud cases.

Findings

Fraud files

In April and May 1998 Thanet introduced a 100% quality check for fraud casework. Thanet uses an investigation record sheet and referral sheets, but in our opinion these could be improved.

A dedicated officer is now responsible for checking each WBS claim for accuracy as well as quality of narrative and investigation. If this check is satisfied the file is stamped, signed and dated. We commend the introduction of this quality checking initiative.

File quality and control

We are pleased that Thanet has improved the quality of its investigation filework, but there is room for further improvement, which we consider in some detail at
Section 4. We emphasise the importance of having on file good quality narrative describing the progress of the investigation and WBS, overpayment, arrest, administrative penalty or prosecution decisions. This ensures that the quality checking process provides assurance of investigative and procedural accuracy. We consider that further improvements to the layout of the investigation record and referral sheets would further enhance the above.

Visiting procedures

Thanet’s fraud investigation unit makes all benefit-related visits for the council.
In addition to fraud-related visits these include:

  • delivering high value cheques
  • explaining overpayment cases to claimants
  • making welfare visits to claimants when required to resolve or explain issues connected with benefit claims.

Thanet must ensure that using investigation staff in this way does not detract from their ability to pursue investigations. Having decided to use investigation staff to carry out a large visiting programme Thanet has introduced the following visiting procedure that combines the dual role of health and safety provision and staff accountability:

  • each visiting officer carries a radio with them at all times when on visiting or investigation duties, and a mobile telephone, personal alarm and appropriate stationery
  • before visiting, investigators check if the:

- claimant has any record of violence or aggression
- address to be visited is on the ‘unsafe address’ list

  • each officer leaves a list of daily visits with the investigation unit, timed if possible, to give an estimate of how long they will be away from the office
  • the visiting officer calls the office when arriving at and leaving each address
  • office staff keep a record of completed visits, annotating the list following contact with the visiting officer
  • in an emergency, the officer can press a panic button on the radio to alert the office staff, who immediately telephone a dedicated police number to give details of the latest home visit
  • Thanet has devised radio procedures to ensure that staff at the office can be made aware of the visiting officer’s situation
  • the good relationship between Thanet and the police guarantees a response time of minutes.

The radio equipment has been bought and installed at a cost of about £6,000. This visiting procedure represents extremely good practice and we commend Thanet for introducing it.

As well as following the above visiting procedures each fraud officer also completes a QB50 (fraud officer's notebook) with details of their daily individual activity, including visits, interviews and observations. This:

  • provides a complete audit trail of individual daily activity
  • helps management to monitor work activity
  • provides additional evidence for potential WBS claims.

Management information

The fraud unit has a software-based computerised case management system called the Fraud Investigation Management system (FIMs). Another LA developed this system, which comes with operating guidance and a procedural and user manual. Thanet told us that the system also comes with a defined series of reports which it considers to be:

  • inaccurate
  • neither clear nor user-friendly
  • inadequate for managing fraud investigations effectively.

The system captures much useful information that could be used to support analysis and thereby enable Thanet to ensure that it targets fraud investigations effectively. Unfortunately this information is not produced in any effective or meaningful way.

The system is not currently set up to produce more useful reports. If it was, useful reports could be produced quite easily. Thanet’s users would need a minimal amount of training to allow them to do this. We recommend that Thanet investigates the position and provides any necessary training.

Conclusions

We conclude that:

  • the introduction of 100% quality and accuracy checks in April and May 1998 has led to an improvement in the quality of filework and the accuracy of WBS claims
  • Thanet has excellent visiting procedures in place and we commend Thanet for introducing them
  • FIMs is not effectively used to provide management information. This has a detrimental effect on Thanet’s ability to analyse the fraud risk and thereby on its ability to ensure that it manages investigation work in the most effective way. Thanet must resolve this situation.

 

BackwardContentsForward