An inspectorate of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Report

Charter Mark - Awarded for excellence

Findings (continued)

Keeping it right

Definition

2.205 Keeping it right means making sure that payments are adjusted as circumstances change. This builds on the work done to keep the gateway to benefit secure and makes sure that there are effective safeguards to keep payments right.

2.206 There are 4 crucial areas:

Notices of determination

2.207 Lambeth is legally required to issue written notices of determination to claimants and, in cases where benefit payments are made to them, landlords.
HB regulations 77 and 78 and CTB regulations 67 and 68 set out the time and manner of notifications, and Schedules 6 to both sets of regulations set out the matters to be included in notification letters.

2.208 We examined Lambeth’s notices of determination to check their compliance with these Schedules. We found that Lambeth’s notices are not fully compliant, as illustrated in Figure 2.41.

Fig. 2.41: Analysis of Lambeth’s notices of determination against Schedule 6 to the HB Regulations

Section of Schedule 6

Compliant?

BFI comments

Part 1 – General

Partly

The right to apply for a statement of reason and how to do so is only included on the reverse of the determination notice, despite the requirements of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6.

It would be helpful if the link was explained between the request for a statement of reasons and the appeals process – as the application for a statement of reasons can extend the period within which an appeal can be lodged.

Part 2 – Awards where IS/JSA(IB) is payable

Partly

Notifications on RA cases do not advise the day of payment despite the requirements of paragraph 9(f) of Schedule 6.

Where non-dependant deductions are made, notifications state the amount deducted from entitlement, but they do not give the category of the deduction, despite the requirements of paragraph 9(d) of Schedule 6.

The date on which the benefit period will end is not clearly stated, often suggesting an award covers to April, but then going on to state that benefit will be "reviewed" on a different date. Paragraph 9(h) of Schedule 6 applies.

Part 3 – Awards where IS/JSA(IB) is not payable

Partly

Comments as for Part 2 above.

Part 4 – Awards where direct payment is made to landlords

Partly

Information regarding the LA’s ability to recover from benefit payments made in respect of other tenants is not included, despite the requirements of with paragraph 11(c) of Schedule 6.

Part 5 – Notice where income of non dependant is treated as claimant’s

-

Lambeth is not aware of any such cases and any notification in respect of such a claim would have to individually drafted as there is no template.

Part 6 – Notice where no award is made

Yes

 

Part 7 – Notice where recoverable overpayment

No

Notices fail to state the reason for any overpayment, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of Schedule 6.

Source: BFI analysis

2.209 Lambeth has created a template to improve the quality of the notices of determination. This prompts staff to add extra information if required. The aim was to help ensure that all claimants receive a complete and easily understood notice. This does not always happen because:

You have been overpaid because… – with the sentence not being finished

You have been overpaid because your claim has been renewed

The reassessment is because your claim has been renewed – even though the reassessment was in respect of a period before the renewal date.

2.210 In one case we found the usual sentence on appeal rights had been excluded from the notification, although the detailed information about these rights still appeared on the pre-printed notes on the reverse.

2.211 Assessments are "posted" to Academy in advance of any management check or determination decision. This means that if any errors are subsequently found, an incorrect notice is likely to have already been issued and a second notice is then sent. The receipt of more than one notice within a short period of time, without any explanation being provided, will confuse the claimant and undermine faith in the benefit system operated by Lambeth. In one case in our sample the claimant had received 3 different notification letters in one week in respect of the same renewal claim.

2.212 We found in our sampling of overpayment cases that Lambeth had:

2.213 We were unable to tell whether the claimant had been notified in 4 (6%) of the cases. This was due to problems accessing archived date on Lambeth’s former benefits system.

2.214 Of those cases where we could tell if Lambeth had sent a letter to the claimant we found that the average length of time from assessment to issuing the notification was 6 days.

We recommend that, to be fully compliant with legal requirements, Lambeth:

This will ensure Lambeth complies with the relevant law.

Renewal claims

2.215 We looked at Lambeth’s handling of renewal claims, in particular the promptness with which renewals were:

2.216 To help us consider Lambeth’s performance on renewal claims, we sampled 59 renewal cases. Figure 2.42 provides a breakdown of these.

Fig. 2.42: Breakdown of renewal cases sample
 

RA

RR

Total

IS/JSA(IB) linked

13

11

24

Standard HB/CTB claims

8

27

35

Total

21

38

59

Source: BFI sample

Issue and control of renewal claim forms

2.217 We established that there is a contract requirement that renewal claim forms are automatically issued 8 weeks before expiry of the current claim, this is in line with the statutory requirement. A reminder is issued 2 weeks before expiry. The Academy system ensures these requirements are met.

2.218 Apart from issuing reminders, Lambeth takes no other follow-up action on non-returned renewals. For example, there is no visiting programme linked to non-return and there are no welfare visits to help vulnerable claimants complete a renewal claim. Visits are carried out in consultation with social services to disabled people who wish to claim benefit. However, the contract does not require Capita to carry out these activities.

2.219 Lambeth has no information on the reasons for renewal claims not being made or on the number of renewals received that are returned for further information or evidence to be provided. Such information would help Lambeth to manage renewal claims more effectively and identify possible fraud and error.

2.220 Lambeth was unable to provide full data on the number of renewals issued, received and awarded over the last 3 years. We were also told that no data from Academy on the number of renewal claims returned has been extracted since conversion.

2.221 It is difficult to see how Lambeth can control renewal claims without such data and, consequently, keep claims right.

Speed of processing

2.222 One of the BV measures, introduced for 1999/2000, is the percentage of renewal claims processed on time. A high performing LA can be expected to ensure that the correct rate of benefit is put in payment as soon as the earlier claim has expired, so that a minimum number of claimants experience a break in their benefit award.

2.223 The backlog at Lambeth means that a high proportion of claimants are experiencing a break in their claim at the renewal stage. We found that:

2.224 Also, at the time of our inspection, in addition to the backlog team’s work, we found that between them the PAT and the ATs had over 2,600 renewal claims awaiting action (linking or assessment). As the data on the age of these claims is not collected, we could not establish how long these claims had been awaiting action.

2.225 The delay in processing renewal claims is apparent from our analysis of the renewal sample, shown in Figure 2.43. If action on renewal claims is delayed this can mean that any changes of circumstances reported on the renewal are not actioned to minimise any resultant overpayment or underpayment of benefit. We excluded 9 of the 59 renewal cases sampled as there was insufficient information to enable full analysis to take place.

Fig. 2.43: BFI analysis of renewal claims sample against 14-day target

Time taken to determine

Number

%

Average number of days taken

Within 14 days

26

52

8

15 – 28 days

8

16

18

Over 28 days

16

32

62

Total

50

100

27

Source: BFI analysis

2.226 Figure 2.43 shows that almost one third of the renewal cases fail to reach the determination stage within 28 days of all information being received. Indeed, 2 cases took over 100 days. The delays shown in Figure 2.44 are due to case backlogs and Lambeth’s inability to ensure that Capita assesses claims promptly to enable all determinations to be made within 14 days.

2.227 Figure 2.44 shows the percentage of cases in our sample determined within 14 days broken down according to whether they were RR or RA claims.

Fig. 2.44: Renewal claims determined within 14 days of receipt of all information

Determined within 14 days

Number

%

RR claims

10

47

RA claims

16

63

Total

26

52

Source: BFI analysis

2.228 Figure 2.45 gives some indication as to where the delays are occurring in the renewal claims process. It reveals that there can be considerable delay from when a claim is received to when it is first actioned.

Fig. 2.45: Renewal claims processing – time taken to reach work steps

Work steps

Average number of days

Range (number of days)

Date of receipt to first action

16

0 – 104

Date all information received to assessment

21

0 – 77

Date of receipt to assessment

25

0 – 77

Source: BFI analysis

2.229 Figure 2.46 shows that over 40% of the renewal claims in our sample took over 28 days from receipt to determination. This shows there is considerable scope for Lambeth to improve the speed with which it processes renewal claims.

Fig. 2.46: Renewal claims – receipt to date of determination

Time taken

Number

%

Average time (days)

Within 14 days

22

37

8

15–28 days

13

22

20

Over 28 days

24

41

68

Total

59

100

35

Source: BFI analysis

Quality of processing

2.230 We have commented on the poor quality of verification work on renewal claims earlier in this report. Our analysis of the renewal cases, however, also showed data collection and input errors, including incorrect dates for changes of circumstances being applied.

2.231 In 15 of the renewal claims we found that staff had failed to either establish the date of a change or had used an incorrect date (such as the claim renewal date) to reassess the claim for the change.

2.232 In total we found that 12 of the renewal cases we sampled had input errors. These included:

We recommend that Lambeth ensures that Capita improves controls and management information in respect of renewal claims to ensure that:

Benefit periods

2.233 The rules for the length of the benefit period are in HB regulation 66 and CTB regulation 57. These require that awards are to be for a fixed period, which must not exceed, when originally determined, 60 weeks.

2.234 In addition, under paragraph (2) of those regulations, Lambeth must consider setting appropriate benefit periods for claimants, having regard to events that are quite likely to happen, such as the end of a fixed lease, or for those in employment, an annual pay increase. Such events mean that benefit periods should be set for shorter periods than 60 weeks or indeed 52 weeks.

2.235 Capita’s procedural manual advises staff that benefit periods should be set for one year, except where a tenancy agreement is less than 6 months old or there is likely to be a change in the claimant’s circumstances. As Lambeth has not implemented VF, there is no guidance on setting the length of benefit awards for different categories of claimants. Nor has Capita undertaken its own risk analysis exercise to set its own standards in this respect. Therefore, no risk groups have been categorised.

2.236 We analysed our renewals sample to ascertain the length of benefit periods being set by Lambeth. Details are in Figure 2.47.

Fig. 2.47: Renewal cases – HB awarded for 60 weeks

Benefit

Number

% of sample

RA

7

12

RR

3

5

Total

10

17

Source: BFI analysis

2.237 Figure 2.47 shows that 17% of the cases in our renewal sample had been awarded benefit for a period of 60 weeks, despite the fact that the policy was to award benefit for no more than 52 weeks.

2.238 More importantly, we found that 14 (23%) of the renewal cases sampled had not had a benefit period tailored to take account of a future change, such as a change in income (for example an occupational pension increase) or the likely end of a tenancy.

2.239 The examples below illustrate the issues that are being missed when benefit periods are being set:

We recommend that, to ensure that staff comply with legal requirements when setting benefit periods and understand and follow its own policies, Lambeth needs to :

Changes of circumstances

2.240 Sections 111A and 112(1A) of the SSAA 1992 make it an offence for persons to make dishonest or false representation to obtain benefit or without reasonable excuse fail to notify a change of circumstances prescribed under the Act. It is therefore important that LAs:

2.241 Lambeth informs and reminds claimants of their duty to report changes through:

2.242 However, Lambeth could do more, for example by:

2.243 Unfortunately, any efforts Lambeth might make to remind and encourage claimants and others, for example landlords, to report changes are likely to be undermined by its backlog and poor customer service, which means that claimants are likely to experience:

2.244 Every LA should have processes in place to ensure that notified changes of circumstances are dealt with quickly and efficiently. The aim must be to ensure claims remain correct, preventing overpayments and underpayments of benefit. If an LA has been aware of a change that reduces or removes benefit entitlement and if it fails to take action to either suspend a claim pending further investigation, or revise the claim, an avoidable overpayment will result.

2.245 The limited statistics available from Lambeth, data obtained from our sampling and information obtained from staff, all show that Lambeth does not perform well when dealing with changes of circumstances. For example:

2.246 Capita has no mechanisms in place for staff to use the diary facility on the IT system. Where additional information or evidence about a reported change is required, the case is returned to the main filing run to await a reply, without any controls being applied to ensure the request information or evidence is received and actioned. This means that if the requested information or evidence is not forthcoming or is lost, benefit can remain in payment at an inappropriate rate until the end of the claim period.

2.247 Our analysis of the renewal claims we sampled showed that staff fail to establish the date of notified changes, assuming they occurred on the renewal date or, in some cases the notification date. Of the 59 renewal cases we sampled, we found that in 15 (25%) of the cases there had been a failure to either establish the date of a change or to assess it from the correct date. Amongst these cases were:

2.248 HB regulation 68 states that, except in prescribed circumstances, changes shall take effect on benefit entitlement from the first day of the benefit week following a change.

2.249 In those cases where a date for the change is not obtained, or where the notification date or renewal date is used, Lambeth is failing to determine claims in accordance with the regulations. Claimants may not be paid their full arrears of benefit and, where changes result in a benefit reduction, overpayments may not be identified and correctly classified.

2.250 We were told that because it is often difficult to locate benefit files, some straightforward changes, for example rent increases, had been assessed without them. We came across an example of this in our renewal sample. There is a risk, however, that such assessments may fail to take account of other issues that might only be identified from the file, for example a check on the claimant’s signature or the relevance of any unactioned post linked to the benefit file. Also, because there is no file to control, there is a greater risk that such cases will not be determined, as happened in the case in our sample file.

We recommend that, to ensure that changes of circumstances notifications are processed with the necessary speed and accuracy, Lambeth :

We recommend that, to ensure that claimants are more aware of the need to report changes, in the longer term, Lambeth adds reminders to remittance notices and uses posters in the public areas of council offices.

Working with landlords, including HAs

2.251 At 30 June 2000 Lambeth’s HB caseload stood at 33,370, of which 13,869 were RA cases. A breakdown of these is provided in Figure 2.48.

Fig. 2.48: Lambeth RA caseload

Category

Number

%

RA cases paid direct to HA tenant

237

2

RA cases paid direct to HAs

8,506

61

Other RA cases paid direct to tenants

2,759

20

Other RA cases paid direct to landlords

2,367

17

Total RA cases

13,869

100

Source: Lambeth

2.252 The BFI Good Practice Guide lists the risks of not communicating effectively with landlords. It is particularly important for Lambeth to liaise effectively with landlords because:

2.253 Capita employs 5 staff on liaison work. Their duties involve:

2.254 These arrangements had been put in place in 1997 because:

2.255 We established that, although there were formal agreed arrangements in place for dealing with queries from HAs concerning tenants’ rent arrears and court cases, there were no formal working arrangements. Although Lambeth used to liaise regularly with a group representing many of the HAs in Lambeth, we were told there had been no meetings with them for over a year. Although liaison staff meet individual representatives of HAs, these meetings are held to deal with enquiries in respect of particular tenants only.

2.256 There has been no recent work on promoting landlord responsibilities and there are no agreed procedures for landlords to advise Lambeth of tenancy terminations or suspected empty properties.

2.257 We were told that, to help speed up the award of HB to their tenants, some HAs will, in certain circumstances, help their tenants complete claim forms and forward copies of requested evidence on to Lambeth. Although we consider this a useful service in that it helps the processing and payment of claims, there are risks associated with it, bearing in mind the potential conflict of interest. For example, it is an LA’s responsibility to ensure that original documents are seen when they are required to support a claim. It is difficult to see how Lambeth can satisfy itself on this issue if it accepts copies submitted by HAs.

2.258 Statistics on the number of queries received from landlords, the number of court cases attended, the outcome of these cases and the amount of assessment work carried out by the team are not compiled by Lambeth, although this situation was being reviewed at the time of our on site work. However, by checking court lists and the team diary we were able to establish that between July and September there were around 17 court attendances per month (approximately 4 per week). Also staff estimated that in around 50% of the court hearings attended, the rent arrears were due to the non-payment of HB and that in a further 25% of cases non-payment or incorrect payment of HB was a contributory factor.

2.259 We were surprised to find that no data on the work of the liaison team was included in the management information prepared for the PB, as it is difficult to see how a full picture on Capita’s performance can be obtained without it. This is important, as we were told that the majority of cases processed by the team require the assessment or reassessment of claims. Reasons for reassessment include correcting errors and reinstating benefit on cases when benefit had been stopped because CAFT had considered the claimant not to be resident.

2.260 The fact that Lambeth needs to improve its liaison with landlords is highlighted by the fact that in our sample of overpayment cases, 13 (22%) of the overpayments were due to claimants having moved house. Of these HB was paid direct to the landlord in 9 instances. This indicates that landlords are failing to tell Lambeth when their tenants move.

2.261 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
XXX

2.262 Lambeth is unlikely to make any progress in improving landlord liaison until the speed and quality of HB claims assessment and payment have significantly improved. Nevertheless, it needs to ensure that there is a two-way flow of information and that landlords are aware of their responsibilities.

We recommend that Lambeth sets up landlord forums and develops landlord information packs, but initially it must ensure its keeps its list of registered landlords up to date.

2.263 Lambeth recovers overpayments in cash from some landlords and also recovers overpaid HB from payments made to landlords direct, but only in respect of current tenants who owe the debt or where an agreement has been made with the landlord for overpayments to be repaid.

We recommend that, to improve liaison with HAs and private landlords, Lambeth works with the HAs and major private landlords to agree the necessary mechanisms and formal working arrangements which:

We also recommend that Lambeth must review its management information needs in respect of liaison work to ensure it has sufficient information to know whether its strategies are working.

Working with the Housing department

2.264 As Lambeth is the largest single landlord in the borough, it is vital that there is a good working relationship between Its Housing Department and its benefits section. Lambeth have recently moved control of the contract monitoring to the HD to improve communication.

2.265 Lambeth’s inability to process HB claims from its own tenants efficiently and effectively means that:

2.266 Benefit’s working arrangements with the HD were revised as the result of adverse LGO reports in July 1997 and complaints from the court about how Lambeth’s poor benefit service was having a negative impact on its business. These arrangements aim to:

2.267 At the time of our inspection, we found that 13 staff were employed on this work, which involved:

2.268 Each NHO is allowed to submit a set number of queries per fortnight, depending upon their tenant caseload. These queries (known as pre-court checks) are received on a standard form. They are usually issued when a tenant’s rent arrears exceed 8 weeks. The queries can be in respect of a tenant who may or may not be receiving HB. In addition, fortnightly meetings are held individually with neighbourhood housing officers to discuss individual cases where necessary. Eight days before a meeting a schedule of cases to be discussed is received so that, where possible, files can be found and issues addressed in advance of the meeting. In September around 200 pre-court check requests were received and 300 requests to discuss individual cases. One team, comprising one team leader and 5 assessors carry out the work described above.

2.269 The aim of the pre-court check and liaison meeting is to minimise the number of cases that are taken to court where arrears are due in whole or in part to HB delay or error.

2.270 If court action is pursued, another team (comprising one team leader and 5 assessors) is responsible for preparing a statement for the court on the defendant’s HB entitlement. (There were 88 pre-hearing and 30 pre-eviction checks received in September 2000.) In most cases this involves a thorough review of the claim, which can mean going back over several years, correcting any errors found and assessing any outstanding claims or outstanding notifications of changes. We were told that the majority of cases that are checked by the liaison team require some assessment or reassessment work to be undertaken.

2.271 We were told that current arrangements had reduced the number of cases going to court where the power to resolve the rent arrears issue lies with the authority’s own benefits department. However, staff estimated that problems regarding the LA’s processing of HB claims was still an issue in around 35% to 40% of the cases heard in court.

2.272 The levels of resources employed on HB and NHO liaison is high, but results are disappointing. This is because the liaison teams are tied up in trying to tackle the outcomes of poor HB administration when it is the root cause that needs to be resolved. We can see no benefit in the LA taking claimants to court for rent arrears, where the power to resolve the matter lies with the LA’s own benefit service, especially when:

2.273 We established that the statistics on the work intake and outputs of the public liaison teams was not reported to the PB. Also, the team did not keep any statistics on the outcome of court cases. Consequently Lambeth was not able to judge the effectiveness of its liaison arrangements.

We recommend that Lambeth develops internal management arrangements between the HD and the benefits section that cover the full range of liaison issues, including:

Abandoned LA tenancies

2.274 One of the main conditions for establishing entitlement to HB is that the claimant must occupy, or be treated as occupying, the property as their home in accordance with section 130(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. If a claimant is temporarily absent, benefit can only continue to be paid in certain circumstances.

2.275 If the Lambeth HD suspects that the council tenant has abandoned a property, staff make enquiries and serve notice to the tenant. If there is no response, the tenancy is terminated. This process can take approximately 6 weeks.

2.276 The interface between the Housing IT system and the Academy system identifies where benefit entitlement should stop based on the date the tenancy is terminated. However, the benefits section would not be made aware that there was a previous period when the tenant had abandoned the property.

2.277 This failure to liaise allows payments of HB to continue unlawfully and constitutes an "LA error" overpayment. One of the conditions for entitlement to HB requires the claimant to occupy the premises as their home. If a private landlord or agent owned the abandoned property, HB would not be paid for the period of notice. The regulations do not make any distinction between council tenancies and private tenancies.

2.278 The HD advised us that there were 95 abandoned properties between April 2000 and September 2000. We therefore estimate that Lambeth could potentially pay approximately £63,000 of HB unlawfully during this financial year as a result of failures in communication.

We recommend that Lambeth should withhold benefit while awaiting further information; either to confirm residency or that the tenant is no longer resident. This will ensure that HB is paid in accordance with legal requirements and minimise overpayments for which no subsidy is payable.

We recommend the Lambeth introduces arrangements that ensure procedures are in place:

We also recommend that Lambeth should review its management information needs in respect of the work carried out by the public liaison teams. The collection and analysis of appropriate data will help the LA establish the effectiveness of its liaison arrangements and provide wider data on the quality and speed with which claims are being processed.

Red Bag Scheme

2.279 We found a good example of where liaison works for Lambeth. The Neighbourhood Housing Benefit Scheme (Red Bag Scheme) team is an initiative set up under the PB. The scheme provides a model for an alternative way of administering HB by breaking down incoming work into discrete areas and devolving responsibility for dedicated areas of work to staff. Staff have clearly defined roles and responsibilities within the team and are held accountable for their performance.

2.280 The objectives of the scheme are to:

2.281 The scheme involves the daily transfer, by internal courier in red bags, of new and renewal benefit claim forms received at the 15 NHOs within the Borough to a dedicated team at OMH.

Roles and responsibilities

2.282 The team at OMH comprises 7 staff (2 Capita assessors and 5 Lambeth HD staff, including a team leader). The team only deals with RR claims.

2.283 Work is allocated on an alphabetical basis within the team as follows:

2.284 The team has performance targets and performance is monitored by the team leader and reported to the PB on a monthly basis.

2.285 Where a claimant has failed to take the relevant documents to the NHO in support of their claim they will be asked to bring the documents to the NHO the following day or to send them to OMH in a stamped addressed envelope.

2.286 If the required documents are not supplied with the claim form, the team sends a request for further information and the case is controlled in a pending system. If the further information is not received after 4 weeks a reminder letter is sent to the claimant and if no reply is received after a further 2 weeks a closure letter is sent.

2.287 Housing staff based at the NHOs request claimants to provide original documents and these are copied at the NHO and a copy taken, certified as original seen and the original returned to the claimant. Training was provided for staff at the NHOs and this included use of the UV scanners and what to look for on suspect documents. Where original documents are not seen staff at the NHOs will mark the copy original not seen. All documents are then transferred to the Red Bag team at OMH.

Performance

2.288 Performance data indicates that for the period 1 August 2000 until 1 September 2000 the team has had a significant impact on 14-day performance and collection of rent. Since its inception the team has:

Payment security

2.289 Benefit payments need to be securely controlled because:

2.290 Lambeth makes RA payments by:

2.291 RA payments are made to both claimants and landlords under HB regulations 93 and 94. Figure 2.49 illustrates the amounts and proportions of RA paid by each of the 3 payment methods in 1999/2000.

Fig. 2.49: RA payment methods in 1999/2000

Payment method

To tenant (£)

To landlord (£)

Total paid (£)

% of total

By BACS

5,448,000

40,116,000

45,564,000

73

By crossed cheque

13,356,000

385,000

13,741,000

22

By giro

3,366,000

25,000

3,391,000

5

Total

22,170,000

40,526,000

62,696,000

100

Source: Lambeth

2.292 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by:

2.293 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

2.294 We were told that there have been informal discussions between Capita and Lambeth about replacing the continuous strip style of cheques and giros with laser printed cut sheets. The advantages of laser printing are that:

2.295 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

2.296 Lambeth uses stock control records for both cheques and giros. All credits and withdrawals from stock must be signed for in the presence of a witness. However, we found that:

We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by:

2.297 Blank cheques and giros are dispatched to Capita’s processing centre at West Malling for printing, by a security courier. However, we found that:

2.298 On every cheque run, it is necessary to check the printer alignment before actual printing of the cheques and giros can commence. To achieve this, the first 8 cheques and 8 giros are spoiled by the print operator at West Malling. The final cheque and giro in each session is also spoiled. We found that until July 2000, the first 10 and the final 5 cheques and giros had been spoiled on every printing session. We consider this practice wasteful and estimate that at least 4,000 cheques and giros are deliberately spoiled each year. Capita staff told us that using laser-printed cut sheets would remove the necessity to spoil cheques and giros.

2.299 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX

2.300 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X

2.301 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X

2.302 Printed cheques and giros are enveloped and sealed by staff in the Cashiers section at OMH. We consider it important that proper controls are in place to ensure the safe custody of printed cheques and giros before dispatch, to minimise the risk of fraud and error. However, we consider this process at Lambeth to be at risk because:

We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by controlling the issue and return of cheques and giros for enveloping and sealing.

BACS payments

2.303 BACS payments are an effective and cheap method of paying benefit. There are particular risks associated with payments direct to bank accounts and LAs must ensure that proper controls are in place to ensure that:

2.304 In 1999/2000, Lambeth paid £45,564,000 to landlords and claimants by BACS (73% of total RA paid).

2.305 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX
XXXX XXX

2.306 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
XXXX XXXX X

Returned cheques

2.307 Returned cheques and giros should be dealt with promptly to minimise the risk of fraud and error. We consider it good practice for LAs to:

2.308 At Lambeth, returned payments are the responsibility of the payments section. At the time of our inspection, we found serious weaknesses in Lambeth’s returned cheque procedures. For example, we found:

2.309 We consider that Lambeth is:

We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by deploying sufficient resources to clear the backlog of returned cheques.

Unpresented cheques

2.310 Unpresented cheques should be identified promptly through regular examination of bank records. It is to an LA’s advantage that payments are cashed promptly, to facilitate bank reconciliation and end-of-year accounting. Uncashed payments should be investigated after a specified period of time as a failure to cash cheques promptly may indicate that the payee:

2.311 The Subsidy Officer informed us that no reconciliation had taken place since March 2000. As a result the Capita Payments Manager does not receive a list of all unpresented cheques. As unpresented cheques may still be valid up to 6 months after issue, this makes it more difficult for Capita, and subsequently Lambeth, to reconcile its bank accounts. There is also a risk that Lambeth is missing an opportunity to detect potential fraud cases.

2.312 We found that no action was being taken to investigate the reasons why payments were not being cashed promptly. Lambeth was unable to state the number and value of uncashed payments more than 3 months old. We consider that Lambeth is failing to:

We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by:

Security and control

Identifying high-risk claims

2.313 We found that Lambeth had not applied a risk management approach to its benefit caseload. Consequently, it had no mechanisms for identifying high-risk claims and no procedures to help minimise the risks associated with such claims. Nor had Lambeth adopted the case categorisation and intervention procedures set down in the VF.

2.314 At the time of our inspection, CAFT was in the process of analysing the results of an exercise to establish the extent of non-reporting of changes of circumstances. To do this, 400 cases had been randomly selected and the claimants visited to see if their circumstances had changed since their last claim was made. We consider the results of the exercise will be of use to both fraud and benefit administration staff. We commend CAFT for undertaking this exercise, but also consider that Lambeth needs to do much more to establish the risks associated with the different types of claims it receives.

2.315 As there is a need to prevent fraud and error from occurring in the first place, CAFT needs to share its findings with those responsible for the administration of HB and CTB claims. Fraud and administration staff also need to work together to develop broader and more detailed knowledge of the risks faced. This information should be used to develop procedures to be applied to the type of claim received, for example:

2.316 To stay one step ahead of the fraudster, it is also important that knowledge of risk and the approaches adopted to minimise risk are continually developed. Lambeth can do this by, for example:

We recommend that Lambeth:

Use of IT

2.317 Reliable management information is a vital part of any organisation. In particular benefit subsidy claims to DSS rely on accurate information. Any variance can result in lost or overclaimed subsidy with financial implications for both LA and national government.

2.318 At Lambeth, following conversion to the Academy system, IT management information has not been regularly produced. Managers have not used IT reports to control the work in their sections and have created manual statistics to compensate. This has placed a heavy reliance on staff manually counting work accurately.

2.319 The contract did not specify the outputs required and the validation of data expected by the client. Due to this weakness one of the agreements reached at the PB was that Capita would now provide a weekly download of the Academy data to Lambeth. Lambeth also agreed to provide 3 members of its IT staff to specifically work with Capita to agree and obtain regular management information reports.

2.320 During our inspection we identified that Lambeth has not made best use of all available system facilities that could:

2.321 Appendix D shows some examples of system facilities and reports that could improve the benefit administration within Lambeth.

We recommend that Lambeth ensure that it, in conjunction with Capita:

2.322 System-produced information will:

Reviews and appeals

2.323 An important feature of the HB and CTB schemes is the statutory right of a person to challenge a determination when they feel it to be incorrect. LAs must therefore have an effective review process that is transparent, responsive and does not deter people from exercising their rights.

2.324 We were told that Lambeth advises claimants of their rights through the determination notices and a leaflet available at NHOs and at main reception points at OMH. However we did not find a copy of the appeals leaflet in the customer waiting area at OMH.

We recommend that, to improve the level of information available to claimants, stocks of leaflets are made available at in the reception area at OMH. This will reduce the number of enquiries at reception and improve customer service.

2.325 Capita deals with requests for reviews of determinations at OMH All requests are date stamped and passed to the appeals section.

2.326 Staff on the appeals section date stamp the letter to identify when it was received on their section. We were told that this is necessary, as there can be significant delays through post being held up on the various sections due to the backlog of work on the HB processing sections.

2.327 All appeals are logged on the section's IT Excel spreadsheet. A note is put on the Academy system to alert HB processing sections that there is an appeal outstanding.

2.328 We were advised that cases which have been incorrectly processed are reassessed by the members of the appeal section and referred again to the determination officer who returns the case to the appeals section to issue a formal review decision.

2.329 Capita agreed that, by taking this action, it is reducing the level of resources available to undertake the review process. However, it prefers to take this line to ensure that the claim is correct and actioned promptly.

2.330 We were advised that the majority of appeals fall into 3 categories:

2.331 Details of the number received during the period April to September 2000 are shown in Figure 2.50.

Fig. 2.50: Reviews received – April to September 2000

Type

First stage review

Review Board stage

Review of overpayment recovery

191

29

Review of level of rent allowed

230

3

Review of backdating decision

132

12

Source: Lambeth

2.332 We found that Capita does not keep records of the number of cases or reasons for revised determinations. This has resulted in Capita missing an opportunity to communicate vital information that would:

2.333 We were told that the majority of revised determinations were in the claimant’s favour. However, Capita told us that the existing Excel data base is not programmed to identify the number of reviews that:

2.334 The absence of this information can result in missed opportunities to identify and pursue training needs for Lambeth and Capita staff. This could avoid cases being incorrectly assessed in the first instance and result in:

We recommend that, to ensure that staff are trained in the correct procedures to follow on reviews and appeals, Lambeth provideswritten guidance. This will assist staff and management as it will:

We recommend that, to improve management information, Lambeth records all relevant information in the review process.

2.335 The number of first and review board stage reviews received in the past
3 years are shown in Figure 2.51.

Fig. 2.51: Comparison of numbers of officer reviews and Review Boards
 

1997/98

1998/99

1999/2000

April 2000 to end of Sept 2000

First stage reviews

202

2,084

1,624

694

Review Boards

197

281

127

49

% of first stage reviews that go to Review Board

97.5

13.48

7.82

7.06

Source: Lambeth

2.336 Figure 2.51 shows that between 1997/98 and 1998/99, the number of appeals received increased sharply. Capita told us that these figures are distorted due to under-recording by staff in 1997/98. We were told that in 1998 there was a re-organisation, which meant that there was now a dedicated team to deal with appeals rather than individual HB assessment sections.

First stage reviews

2.337 Capita are required to provide Lambeth with a recommended course of action based on the facts of each case. Staff have been set a target of 10 days to review the cases. We were told that this is target is not always met as there are delays caused by difficulty in finding the claimant’s file. Our sample confirms that only 22% are cleared within 10 days. We were told that more time is lost when members of the appeals section help to find the relevant file.

2.338 We were told that priority is given to claimants who are facing eviction and those cases being referred to the LGO.

2.339 We randomly selected 10 cases that that had been through the process of first stage review and review boards. The review board heard these cases during the period May 2000 to August 2000. We found delays in 80% of case. We also found only 2 first stage cases that had been actioned by Capita within the statutory 14-day timescale and within its local 10-day target.

Review Boards

2.340 The Borough Solicitor is notified of the request by the appeals section and is allocated a hearing date. Each appellant is sent guidance on the review board procedures. We consider that this is good practice as it allows the appellant to be aware of the process before they attend and allows them to prepare their case in the light of that process.

2.341 At Lambeth the review board panel is drawn from a pool of 8 Councillors. A private firm of solicitors is contracted to provide legal advice to the Board. We consider this is good practice and is in line with advice provided by DSS.

2.342 The review board hearings are usually held during a weekday evening. However, because there were 17 cases waiting to be heard, Lambeth decided to hear cases on Saturdays during October 2000 to clear this backlog.

2.343 LAs must hold a review board within 6 weeks of receiving a request, or as soon as practically possible after that. We examined our sample of 10 cases for evidence that review boards were held within the prescribed timescales.

2.344 The results show that Lambeth is failing to meet its statutory obligations:

We recommend that Lambeth urgently investigates the reasons for delay in review board procedures and take steps to ensure that timescales detailed in legislation are adhered to.

2.345 LAs must send the review board's decision in writing within 7 days or as soon as possible thereafter. Figure 2.52 shows that Lambeth is not achieving this target.

Fig. 2.52: Review Board cases

Sample number

Date of Review Board

Date of notification to claimant

Within timescales?

1

5/6/00

No record on file

Not known

2

23/5/00

13/6/00

No

3

16/5/00

No record on file

Not known

4

7/7/00

22/8/00

No

5

17/7/00

No record on file

Not known

6

1/6/00

22/9/00

No

7

Case subject to judicial review

Not applicable

Not applicable

8

15/6/00

No record on file

Not known

9

21/7/00

6/9/00

No

10

23/8/00

6/9/00

No

Source: Lambeth and BFI analysis

2.346 We were told that it could take several weeks for the decision to be sent to the appeals section by the Borough Solicitor’s office. In the first instance the section receives a short note from the review board to advise them of the outcome. A copy of the short note is sent to the claimant. However, as we could not find a copy on any of the files, it is not possible to confirm that this was received by the claimant or by the appeals section.

2.347 We were told that following the short note Lambeth sends a detailed explanation of the decision. On examination of the 5 available, we found these to be well written and clear to understand.

2.348 We found that the results from review boards are not analysed and therefore any trends are not fed back to improve the process or to develop staff training.

We recommend that, to inform training needs, Lambeth analyses the outcome of first stage reviews and review boards. This could:

Complaints

2.349 Lambeth adopted a complaints procedure in 1991. The basic definition of a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the LA or their staff affecting an individual client or group of clients.

2.350 Lambeth has produced a complaints leaflet entitled How do I Complain? It carries the Plain English Campaign’s Crystal Mark for clarity. The leaflet sets out the procedure for complaining about the LA’s services. The back cover can be used as a complaint form. Lambeth also accepts complaints via its website.

2.351 Lambeth received a total of 3,074 complaints between 1 April 2000 and 30 September 2000. Of these, 1,689 (55%) could be directly attributed to HB and CTB. A breakdown of the complaint types received is shown in Figure 2.53.

Fig. 2.53: HB and CTB complaint types received – Sept 1999 to Sept 2000

Complaint type

Number received

% of total complaints

Delay in new claim assessment

254

8.3

Delay in renewal claim assessments

501

16.3

Delays in service

710

23.1

Lost papers

21

0.7

Overpayment

59

1.9

Querying assessment

117

3.8

Requesting backdating < 12 months

20

0.7

Requesting backdating > 12 months

7

0.2

Total

1,689

55

Source: Lambeth Complaints Team

2.352 We found that because of the way that Lambeth records complaints, for all directorates rather than by directorate and then complaint type, HB-related complaints can be recorded within 24 of the 32 complaint types. Figure 2.54 shows details of the number of complaints possibly involving HB.

Fig. 2.54: Complaints where HB and CTB could be involved

Complaint type

Number received

% of total complaints

Additional information

25

0.8

Conduct/attitude of staff

75

2.4

Confusing notification letters

9

0.3

Difficulty in phoning in

7

0.2

Failure to provide information

21

0.7

Letters: no response

204

6.6

Letters: unsatisfactory response

9

0.3

Missing payments

122

4.0

Objection to private contractor

9

0.3

Payment stopped

59

1.9

Policy issues

10

0.3

Quality of service

111

3.6

Querying amount

89

2.9

Querying liability

218

7.1

Unhappy with information given

51

1.7

Total

1,019

33.1

Source: Lambeth Complaints Team

2.353 Lambeth uses a Microsoft Access database called Respond to record and monitor a complaint. It was introduced in September 1999. It has taken a year for the team to fully use Respond. Lambeth uses 32 complaint types. These are being reviewed to reduce to them to 10. We consider the use of Respond to record and monitor complaints is good practice, as it allows Lambeth to monitor the type and outcome of the complaint.

2.354 Lambeth’s complaints team receives first, second and third stage complaints and LGO’s complaints for all the LA Directorates. Capita also has a complaint and ombudsman team that receives complaints direct. We were told that:

2.355 When Lambeth receives a first stage complaint it encourages the complainant first to contact Capita and give Capita the opportunity to deal with the complaint. Lambeth enters the telephone call on Respond and closes it. Lambeth takes no further action unless a formal second stage complaint is received.

2.356 Lambeth does not monitor Capita’s first stage complaints process or issue targets for their clearance. If the complainant informs Lambeth that they have previously contacted Capita and had no reply, it will be treated as a second stage complaint.

2.357 Second stage complaints are logged onto Respond and also scanned in. A file is created showing the directorate it should go to and the complaint type. A copy of the complaint papers is sent to Capita with a cover sheet, but not the scanned documents. The file is placed in a live file run. Lambeth monitors the Respond diary facility daily for cases to be cleared.

2.358 Replies to second stage complaints are prepared by Capita and sent to Lambeth for sign off. The Complaints manager, his deputy and experienced team members sign off complaints. We were told that Lambeth rejects 5 – 10% of drafts due to poor checking by Capita.

Complaints handling by Capita

2.359 Capita logs all complaints onto the Academy notepad facility and Respond. It only has limited access to the Respond database. At the first stage every effort is made to clear the complaint, provide answers and resolve problems and to satisfy the complainant in 28 days.

2.360 At the second stage, Capita checks the file to see if it is a new complaint or if it relates to one already outstanding. Capita deals with complaints in date order unless given a priority by Lambeth. A complainant must receive a full written reply within 28 days of the LA receiving it. Failing this, an interim reply must be issued within 10 working days. If necessary the file is passed to a determination officer for determination and then to an assessor. The determination officer is required to turn the case around within 48 hours. If the assessor does not agree with the determination officer's decision, the case is referred to the supervisor who reviews the file. If the supervisor supports the assessor, the case has to be routed back via the determination officer supervisor.

Capita’s first stage action plan

2.361 Capita has a new action plan for clearing the backlog of first stage complaints. When we were on site the backlog was 345 cases. Five appeals officers will be responsible for handling backlog complaints. The aim of the action plan is to clear the backlog of cases by late December 2000.

2.362 The formula used by Capita to work out the complement of officers needed to process the backlog and clear new cases takes into account annual leave. However, it does not allow for possible training days or sick leave or the current workflow problems created by backlogs and missing files. Each week, on average, 45 new first stage complaints are received. When backlog figures and the new complaint figures are taken together, the staff processing them cannot keep up.

2.363 We identified a number of weaknesses in Lambeth’s process for dealing with complaints. Figure 2.55 shows our findings.

Fig. 2.55: Problems identified in the complaints process

Problems identified

Action required

Lambeth told us that the average time taken to clear a second stage complaint is 50 working days.

The target is 28 days.

Capita staff believe Lambeth has no procedures for dealing with complaints or guidance for complaints officers.

Lambeth has an LA-wide Complaints Handling Policy. We are concerned that the experienced Capita staff we interviewed were not aware of such a policy and we have to ask what policy has Capita been following and why Lambeth has not passed its policy to Capita.

Capita and its Coventry Call Centre inform complainants to contact Lambeth’s customer service team in the first instance.

Capita should handle first stage complaints.

Lambeth provided 6 Respond licences to Capita.

Capita staff told us that they have limited access to Respond as it is protected by a firewall (a barrier between different computer servers).

The Capita Complaints manager can update Respond, but access is controlled. For example the case cannot be closed as this can only be done when it has been checked by Lambeth.

Capita staff have not received training on how to handle a complaint. Training is "on the job".

Capita has a appraisal system that identifies development needs. Staff moved to new jobs should receive the training needed.

There are no individual targets for complaint officers.

Productivity targets for individuals should be established and performance monitored by Team Leaders. Performance and ongoing issues should be discussed at regular meetings.

Lambeth and Capita have no clear policy on what statistics should be recorded.

Lambeth determines policy and ensures that Capita provides statistical data to support the process.

There is poor communication between senior managers and staff.

Lambeth and Capita complaints team meet regularly to:

  • discuss and resolve issues
  • identify and promulgate good practice
  • identify and pursue common training needs.

Complaint staff redetermine inaccurate benefit claims but no statistics are kept.

A record is maintained and the information is forwarded to HB team leaders and Capita training officers.

Source: BFI

2.364 If Lambeth and Capita take action to remedy the problems we have identified in the handling of complaints they will be in a better position to handle complaints and reduce the number received.

We recommend that the Capita complaints and backlog complaint teams amalgamate to handle all complaints.

2.365 The current structure gives no ownership to the complaints staff and with more staff dealing with complaints at an early stage they should be cleared more quickly and avoid becoming backlog complaints. We believe this is a better use of the resources available.

Members’ enquiries

2.366 Members’ enquiries, complaints from people facing potential eviction and the vulnerable are given priority over general complaints from the public.

2.367 In August 2000 new procedures for dealing with Members’ enquiries were introduced at the request of the Council Leader. Members’ enquiries account for approximately 35% of Lambeth’s Complaints Team’s work. The new procedures are aimed at providing Members with accurate replies more quickly. Enquiries are acknowledged within 2 working days with the aim of issuing a full reply in 7 working days. If it cannot be fully acknowledged an interim reply with up-to-date information is issued. Capita is asked to supply the required detail but is not given a copy of the interim reply. Members’ enquiries are now recorded separately on Respond. Previously they were recorded as second stage complaints.

2.368 Lambeth told us that the new process has led to a significant reduction in the time taken to investigate and answer the enquiries. At the time of our on-site inspection, figures were not available to substantiate this. Our analysis shows that Lambeth had 106 Members’ enquiries outstanding at the end of October.
Figure 2.56 provides details.

Fig. 2.56: Members’ enquiries received – August and September 2000
 

August

September

Enquiries received

93

117

Cleared within 10 days

12

45

Cleared within 20 days

25

22

Not cleared

56

50

Source: Lambeth Complaints Team

MPs’ enquiries

2.369 Lambeth told us that it has a good working relationship with local MPs, 2 of whom are Ministers. Working relationships have been improved by regular informal contact between Lambeth’s Complaints Team and the MPs’ constituency office.

2.370 However, Lambeth does not specifically measure performance on MPs’ enquiries as:

2.371 Lambeth said that it does not give priority to MPs’ enquiries over any others. As there is no statistical information available, it was not possible to determine Lambeth’s performance or establish the effectiveness of existing control procedures.

We recommend that, to measure performance effectively on MPs’ enquiries, Lambeth should:

Complaints backlog

2.372 As well as the Capita team dealing with the backlog of first stage complaints, the PB funds a backlog complaints team of 5 staff. The team was set up in March 2000 to clear the original ring-fenced backlog of complaints up to 31 January 2000, some 1200 cases, of which 475 were at the second stage. As of September 2000 the team is now dealing with all backlog complaints cases.

2.373 The backlog team only takes ongoing complaints. The team has its own Excel spreadsheet and uses Academy and Respond.

2.374 The team investigates a complaint and if necessary the case is assessed and passed to the determination officer for determination. A letter is prepared and issued to Lambeth’s Complaints Team for sign off.

LGO

2.375 The LGO Annual Report published in September 2000 showed that the LGO had received 1,705 complaints concerning HB. Of these, 65% were for 3 London LAs of which Lambeth was one. In London HB accounts for 26.5% of the 722 complaints received by the LGO.

2.376 In April 1999 the LGO met Lambeth and Capita. The LGO was told that they were convinced that there would be a:

…major reduction in the number of justified complaints over the next twelve months.

The number of complaints received during the year actually increased by 97.28% from 296 in 1998/99 to 584 in 1999/2000.

2.377 In May 2000 the LGO held a further meeting with leading Lambeth Councillors and chief officers. The LGO expressed:

…his deep concern that reforms promised by Lambeth in response to my reports on investigations in previous years had been ineffective.

Many of the same defects were reflected in complaints investigated in 1999/2000.

2.378 During 1999/2000 the LGO issued 12 reports on complaints against Lambeth about HB with a finding of maladministration and injustice. There were many more enquiries where the same is the case but where they were settled locally without a report.

2.380 Figure 2.57 provides details of the LGO’s findings relating to 3 benefit claims.

Fig. 2.57: LGO findings – case studies

REF: LGO Report 99/A/2029/2030/2718

Claimant was an LA tenant until October 1999. A claim for HB and CTB was submitted in September 1998. On the resumption of paid employment on 19 April 1999 a new claim was submitted. On 11 May the LA wrote requesting copies of the last 5 pay slips and details of any other benefits paid. With arrears growing claimant complained to Capita by telephone and told her local NHO of her difficulties. The NHO made its own enquiries using liaison arrangements set up with Capita. On 1 September claimant received a Notice Seeking Possession sent by the NHO. In the covering letter the claimant was threatened with the authority’s naming and shaming policy in the local press if the agreement to clear the arrears was not kept to. The claimant contacted her NHO and was told that they did not want to serve the notice as they knew the situation but were told they must do so. The NHO later told the claimant to make an official complaint about the delay in dealing with her claims.

In October 1999 both claims were assessed, putting claimants’ account into credit. Due to a change of circumstances a further claim was submitted, on 2 October 1999 but not determined until 21 February 2000. During this time the new landlord issued 2 Notices Seeking Possession as a result of the arrears caused by the authority’s delay in determining the 2 October 1999 claim.

The LGO found that the delay in determining all three claims was maladministration. He also found that it was maladministration for the LA to issue a Notice Seeking Possession, and to make a threat of disclosing the claimant’s name in the press, when the LA’s incompetence was the cause of the arrears. The LA was ordered to pay £750 compensation for the injustice caused. As result of this complaint the LA redrafted the standard letter sent with Notices Seeking Possession where the NHO is aware that there is an outstanding claim for HB.

Source: BFI analysis

2.381 Between April and October 2000 Lambeth paid out £71,843 in compensation as advised by the LGO.

2.382 The LGO normally allows an LA 15 days to investigate and reply to one of his complaints. Lambeth is allowed 20 days. At the time of our inspection the LGO informed us that Lambeth had enquiries outstanding from May 2000. Capita staff told us the oldest enquiry dates from February 2000.

2.383 Normally the LGO does not accept a complaint for investigation unless the LA concerned has had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and reply to it. Complaints that have not already been considered by LAs are treated as premature and referred to the LA concerned. It is worrying that the situation is such us that the LGO does not currently feel able to refer premature complaints to Lambeth for consideration through its own complaints procedure, as he has no confidence in Lambeth’s ability to deal with such complaints.

2.384 In view of the volume of complaints about HB against Lambeth the LGO works with Lambeth to identify cases which he considers need priority treatment. At the time of the inspection the LGO informed us that Lambeth had not been able to achieve clearance of priority cases within the target of one month.

2.385 The LGO has approximately 290 HB complaints against Lambeth in hand. Of these approximately 150 are with Lambeth for response to a first enquiry letter, second enquiry letter or local settlement proposal. Due to the volume of complaints and the difficulties Lambeth has in providing information, the LGO now has a backlog of complaints that he can not deal with within his target time.

2.386 Due to a lack of public confidence in Lambeth’s complaints process members of the public are taking complaints direct to the LGO. LGO cases take longer to process. Of the 869 complaints received by the LGO, between September 1999 and 20 October 2000, 453 did not go through the second stage process. Snapshot analysis, conducted by Lambeth, of 10 second stage complaints shows average clearance is 50 days. For an LGO complaint it is 86 days. By going through the second stage review process a complaint would be dealt with slightly quicker. However, as the clearance time for LGO cases is 15 days (20 days for Lambeth), Lambeth cannot argue that by accepting complaints direct the LGO is causing it difficulties in clearing complaints.

2.387 Figure 2.58 shows the number of complaints the LGO has received so far this year for Lambeth.

Fig. 2.58: LGO cases received – April to August 2000

Month

Number of cases received

April

62

May

66

June

75

July

52

August

60

Total

315

Source: LGO

2.388 Since 1 January 2000 the LGO has closed 412 Lambeth HB complaint cases.

2.389 Interviews with managers and staff dealing with LGO cases for Capita point to a service that is failing. We found that although managers and staff dealing with LGO cases were committed and wanted to provide a speedy and accurate response to a complaint they were hindered by:

Figure 2.59 shows the number of HB and CTB justified complaints investigated by the LGO over the last 6 years.

Fig. 2.59: Justifiable HB complaints

Year

Total number of HB complaints received

Number of complaints justified in whole or part (by way of a maladministration and injustice report or local settlement

Justified complaints as a % of total HB decisions

1994/95

18

11

61

1995/96

54

40

74

1996/97

175

140

80

1997/98

281

207

74

1998/99

250

178

71

1999/2000

448

332

74

Source: LGO

Sign off

2.390 Replies to LGO complaints are prepared by Capita and sent to Lambeth for signature. The Complaints Manager, his deputy and experienced team members sign off the complaints after checking that the complaint has been fully answered. The aim is to receive and sign off on the same day. There is a 5 – 10% rejection rate of the drafts Capita sends due to poor quality checks by Capita.

Procedures, training and communication

2.391 We were able to establish through our interviews that neither Lambeth nor Capita issue procedures or guidance to staff dealing with complaints or LGO work. Within the teams the process for dealing with complaints is understood but there is no commonality in the way that either team deals with its complaints. And Capita staff believe that the Director’s complaints team has a different understanding than they do of what is a first stage complaint. This is not the case.

2.392 We were told that there is no training provided by Capita on any aspects of the complaints process. Capita has a training policy and has undertaken a training skills analysis and operates a system of appraisals and interim staff reviews to identify staff training and development needs. However, we were told that training that staff identify they need is done "on the job". For instance when Capita receives a new DSS Circular it is issued but no discussion takes place on its impact or how Lambeth and Capita will implement any changes introduced. We were informed that at a senior level policy might be agreed but this is not communicated down the line.

We recommend that:

Church Commissioners

2.393 Lambeth’s complaints team and Members met with Church Commissioners in June. The background to the meeting was the problems experienced by the Church Commissioners and its tenants, namely:

2.394 As a result of the delays Commissioners had made steps to implement a policy of complaining directly to the LGO. This would have generated many extra LGO complaints per month.

2.395 The meeting agreed to improve the lines of communication between Capita’s RA assessment team and the Commissioners. Monthly liaison meetings were agreed and section contact point details were exchanged to improve communications.

2.396 The meeting would not have been necessary if Lambeth had recognised the benefits of maintaining good communications with landlords and recognising the need to act with some urgency when people are threatened with the loss of their homes.

Keeping it right – recommendations
  • We recommend that, to be fully compliant with legal requirements, Lambeth:
  • changes its determination notice templates and ensures that assessors, when tailoring the templates:
  • include all necessary information
  • give full and appropriate reasons for any changes in entitlement covered by the determination notice.
  • determination notices are:
  • only issued after a case has been determined
  • included in the checks carried out by management and determination officers.
    (Paragraph 2.214)
  • We recommend that Lambeth ensures that Capita improves controls and management information in respect of renewal claims to ensure that:
  • follow up action is taken on non-returned renewals
  • renewal claims are prioritised and actioned to minimise the number of cases in which there is a break in payments
  • the quality of data collection (including the resolution of inconsistencies), recording and input is improved
  • full use is made of data on renewals to help risk manage claims, review renewal claim forms and inform training needs
  • the Academy system is programmed to ensure payments do not exceed 52 weeks. (Paragraph 2.232)
  • We recommend that, to ensure that staff comply with legal requirements when setting benefit periods and understand and follow its own policies, Lambeth needs to:
  • improve guidance on benefit periods, making clear, amongst other things, its policy on the award of 60-week benefit periods
  • set criteria for reducing benefit periods for claims where circumstances are likely to change
  • ensure it complies with relevant regulations when setting benefit periods.
    (Paragraph 2.239)
  • We recommend that, to ensure that changes of circumstances notifications are processed with the necessary speed and accuracy, Lambeth:
  • uses the diary facility on Academy to control cases
  • introduces procedures for recording the date of receipt and clearance of notifications
  • introduces procedures and checks to ensure that the date of change has been established and the correct date for reassessment used
  • reviews and revises the policy and procedures for assessing cases without a file. (Paragraph 2.250)
  • We recommend that, to ensure that claimants are more aware of the need to report changes, in the longer term, Lambeth adds reminders to remittance notices and uses posters in the public areas of council offices. (Paragraph 2.250)
  • We recommend that Lambeth sets up landlord forums and develops landlord information packs, but initially it must ensure its keeps its list of registered landlords up to date.(Paragraph 2.262)
  • We recommend that, to improve liaison with HAs and private landlords, Lambeth works with the HAs and major private landlords to agree the necessary mechanisms and formal working arrangements which:
  • formalise working relationships
  • include agreed performance targets, outlining both quantifiable and non-quantifiable criteria
  • include a mechanism for measuring performance against targets. (Paragraph 2.263)
  • We also recommend that Lambeth must review its management information needs in respect of liaison work to ensure it has sufficient information to know whether its strategies are working. (Paragraph 2.263)
  • We recommend that Lambeth develops internal management arrangements between the HD and the benefits section that cover the full range of liaison issues, including:
  • procedures for reducing the number of council tenants on which court action is taken when rent arrears are due to delays in processing HB claims
  • the role of housing and benefits staff in respect of these procedures
  • a senior officer takes responsibility to ensure changes occur
  • clear performance targets are set and actively monitored. (Paragraph 2.273)
  • We recommend that Lambeth should withhold benefit while awaiting further information; either to confirm residency or that the tenant is no longer resident. This will ensure that HB is paid in accordance with legal requirements and minimise overpayments for which no subsidy is payable. (Paragraph 2.278)
  • We recommend the Lambeth introduces arrangements that ensure procedures are in place:
  • to inform the benefits section immediately when an LA property is suspected of being abandoned
  • for notifying on abandoned properties
  • to ensure appropriate action is taken. (Paragraph 2.278)
  • We recommend that Lambeth should review its management information needs in respect of the work carried out by the public liaison teams. The collection and analysis of appropriate data will help the LA establish the effectiveness of its liaison arrangements and provide wider data on the quality and speed with which claims are being processed. (Paragraph 2.278)
  • We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by:
  • reviewing the security of the Cashiers section and taking urgent remedial action where required
  • providing staff with lockers for personal belongings. (Paragraph 2.292)
  • We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by:
  • changing the cheque and giro format to laser printed cut sheets
  • printing a time limit for encashment on its cheques
  • ensuring that staff are instructed that errors on the cheque and giro stock control sheets should clearly deleted, and the correct entry made on the next available line
  • regularly updating the signature list of authorised courier staff
  • using a security courier to return printed cheques and giros to OMH
  • arranging for duplicate keys to the lockable steel boxes to be held securely at OMH
  • ensuring that the printed cheques and giros are delivered to the Cashiers section
  • arranging for the empty steel boxes to be returned to West Malling unlocked
  • supervising staff engaged in enveloping and sealing duties at all times. (Paragraph 2.296)
  • We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by controlling the issue and return of cheques and giros for enveloping and sealing. (Paragraph 2.302)
  • XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
  • XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X
    XXXX XXXX XX
  • XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
    XXXX XXXX XXXX X (Paragraph 2.306)
  • We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by deploying sufficient resources to clear the backlog of returned cheques. (Paragraph 2.309)
  • We recommend that Lambeth improves the security of the payment process by:
  • referring suspicious cases where payments have been returned, to CAFT
  • instructing all staff that returned cheques should be cancelled upon receipt
  • reconciling payments with bank statements at least every month
  • ensuring that the list of unpresented cheques is referred to the Payments section every month for clearance
  • requiring the payments section to refer payments that remain unpresented within a specified period of time to CAFT to investigate. (Paragraph 2.312)
  • We recommend that Lambeth:
  • fraud and administration staff work together and share information to identify risks and develop the procedures needed to minimise them
  • carries out broader and more detailed risk analysis work, using local knowledge and by analysing, amongst other things, changes of circumstances notifications and non-returned renewal claims
  • introduces arrangements for categorising claims according to risk. (Paragraph 2.316)
  • We recommend that Lambeth ensure that it, in conjunction with Capita:
  • reviews the Academy system capabilities and the configurations set to improve system security and provide all available online guidance to staff
  • urgently agrees the management information required, using the guidance above and by sharing best practices from other Academy users. The frequency of all information should be agreed and adhered to. (Paragraph 2.321)
  • We recommend that, to improve the level of information available to claimants, stocks of leaflets are made available at in the reception area at OMH. This will reduce the number of enquiries at reception and improve customer service. (Paragraph 2.324)
  • We recommend that, to ensure that staff are trained in the correct procedures to follow on reviews and appeals, Lambeth provides written guidance. This will assist staff and management as it will:
  • result in a better understanding of roles and responsibilities
  • lead to a consistent approach by all staff
  • provide staff with a reference point when handling enquiries from claimants
  • enable management to measure performance against current procedures and baseline procedures and performance. (Paragraph 2.334)
  • We recommend that, to improve management information, Lambeth records all relevant information in the review process. (Paragraph 2.334)
  • We recommend that Lambeth urgently investigates the reasons for delay in review board procedures and take steps to ensure that timescales detailed in legislation are adhered to. (Paragraph 2.344)
  • We recommend that, to inform training needs, Lambeth analyses the outcome of first stage reviews and review boards. This could:
  • significantly reduce the number of reviews received
  • improve performance targets on HB and CTB applications
  • reduce the level of resources employed on the review process
  • improve relations with claimants, Members and outside organisations. (Paragraph 2.348)
  • We recommend that the Capita complaints and backlog complaint teams amalgamate to handle all complaints. (Paragraph 2.364)
  • We recommend that, to measure performance effectively on MPs’ enquiries, Lambeth should:
  • provide staff with written procedures
  • agree and publish targets for each part of the procedure
  • control procedures through programming the Respond IT system. (Paragraph 2.371)
  • We recommend that:
  • LGO statistics are kept and analysed to monitor contract performance and better improve the benefit payment process
  • Lambeth ensures that its complaints handling guide is issued to Capita and that it is used to measure Capita’s performance
  • comprehensive guidance is issued to all complaints staff, and is continually updated
  • one central client team receives all complaints and allocates them to Capita
  • a training needs analysis is undertaken and any training identified is taken forward urgently
  • complaints statistics are kept and analysed to monitor contract performance.
    (Paragraph 2.392)

Previous
Next