Foreword

This report records the results of an inspection of benefits administration and counter fraud activity at the London Borough of Haringey (LB Haringey).

Social and economic factors show that LB Haringey has some difficulties in administering benefits effectively. In many respects, it has responded positively to this challenge and demonstrates that persistent backlogs and processing delays do not need to be constant features of a benefit service. It has clearly taken a considerable amount of effort and dedication to achieve this position.

A consistent theme in our inspection is that improvements in the quality of processed work are lagging behind the gains made in speed. Some of these quality issues result in reduced customer service, such as the low priority given to further reviews, while others, such as verification, have serious implications for the security of the gateway to benefit. The challenge that LB Haringey faces is to improve its quality, while maintaining its admirable performance on processing speed. This will not be easy but LB Haringey has already made significant advances. Our recommendations are intended to help LB Haringey continue the initiatives it has already started.

LB Haringey had not, at the time of our on-site visit, implemented the Verification Framework (VF). We tested the standard of verification on new and renewal claims and found that verification had some significant weaknesses. This reduces the overall security of the gateway. To provide consistency in processing LB Haringey maintains a detailed and comprehensive procedure manual and has ISO 9002 certification for many of its processes. Discussions with LB Haringey since our visit suggest that it believes it became fully compliant with VF in February 2001.

LB Haringey has had difficulty maintaining its checking regime so has insufficient assurance that benefit determinations are correct. There is limited risk analysis to identify high risk claims and its approach to setting benefit periods should be improved. The processes for handling reviews and further reviews need revising to avoid unacceptable delays.

LB Haringey has an effective investigation operation with a committed and motivated staff, but its overall counter fraud effort is more patchy. Our reservations concern resources, the validity of some WBS claims and the low numbers of prosecutions. Overpayment recovery is less satisfactory and we make some recommendations for improvement.

We commend LB Haringey for its effective stance against internal fraud and for its comprehensive anti-fraud strategy, which gives a high profile to benefit fraud.

LB Haringey responded positively to the inspection with a high level of co-operation throughout the process. Before our visit, it prepared a position statement setting out what it perceived as the strengths and weaknesses of its operations. The statement also gave details of the actions it was taking to improve weak areas. This shows a commendable level of self-awareness and our inspection confirmed many of the statement’s conclusions.

On behalf of the inspection manager and his team, I thank the Members and staff of LB Haringey for their support and patience during our inspection.

Chris Bull
Director