Actual performance

3.3 This section outlines the Best Value performance indicators that Breckland District Council reports to the Department. This data is useful both to give an overall picture of progress, over time of the Benefits Service, and to provide the means for detailed analysis of potential delays or blockages in the process. By using the data and information provided, Councils can effectively monitor and improve performance.

3.4 Regulation 76(3) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 states that every claim for HB shall be decided within 14 days of the relevant information having been received, or as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter. There is a similar provision for CTB at regulation 66(3) of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992, which also requires the first payment of any CTB to be made within 14 days of receipt of the claim or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter.

3.5 In addition to the statutory requirements, the Best Value regime also requires councils to measure and report the average time for processing new claims and sets a target of 36 calendar days.

3.6 HB and CTB are vital payments made to help people on low incomes and their claims should be dealt with quickly and accurately to avoid potential hardship.

3.7 Figure 3.1 shows Breckland District Council’s reported performance against the Best Value performance indicators for the past 2 years. Breckland District Council had reported a significant improvement in its average time to process new claims, this had reduced from an average of 122 days in 2002/03 to 33 days in 2003/04. It had also reported an improved performance in the percentage of new claims decided within 14 days of all information becoming available, increasing from 30% in 2002/03 to 81% in 2003/04.

Source: The Department

3.8 We examined data, provided to us by Breckland District Council from its Benefits IT system, for the period January 2004 to the end of August 2004. The data included all claims determined in that period.

3.9 To establish the effectiveness and accuracy of claims processing we randomly selected 30 new claims to be sampled. However we were unable to use all of the 30 claims selected as a number had been incorrectly categorised on the Benefits IT system as new claims. These claims were in fact continuous claims involving changes of circumstances, free benefit weeks and case re-working. Because there were insufficient new claims we added a further 5 cases to our original list, to complete our sample.

14-day performance

3.10 For year ending 2002/03 Breckland District Council reported to the Department that 30% of new claims were decided within 14 days of all information becoming available. Reported performance for 2003/04 was 81%.

3.11 Figure 3.2 details Breckland District Council’s reported performance for the percentage of new claims processed. The table shows a significant improvement from 28% in 2002/03 to 81% in 2003/04 and 77% for the period April 2004 to 30 September 2004.

Source: the Department.

3.12 We obtained more detailed information from the Department and
Figure 3.3 shows Breckland District Council’s performance over the last
2 quarters of 2003/04 and the first 2 quarters of 2004/05.

Source: the Department.

3.13 We were told that the deterioration in performance shown for the first quarter of 2004/05 as 66% of new claims processed within 14 days of all information becoming available was a direct result of the relocation of Forest Heath Benefits Service to shared accommodation at Breckland.

3.14 Figure 3.4 provides the monthly breakdown of its performance from
April 2004 to September 2004 for the percentage of new claims decided within 14 days of all information becoming available.

Source: Breckland District council.

3.15 The merger of the Benefits Services took place in April 2004 and the impact of the merger was reflected in the reported 63% of new claims processed for April 2004. However, a steady return to its former performance was shown in a reported 67% for May 2004 steadily increasing to 80% for September 2004. This information demonstrates Breckland District Council’s managed recovery to a sustained level of performance.

3.16 To establish the extent of delays we analysed the 30 new claims used in the sample to assess the range of days for those new claims decided outside the 14-day target. Figure 3.5 provides our findings.

Source: BFI analysis.

3.17 We found that 22 (74%) out of the 30 new claims examined had been decided within 14 days of all information becoming available. However, in 6 of the 8 claims that were not processed within 14 days we found unnecessary delays in processing the information once received.

3.18 In the other 2 claims an incorrect date had been recorded for all information received on the Benefits IT system. In these cases the correct date should have been the date the Rent Officer determination was received, not the date that further evidence requested had been received. For both of these cases the Rent Officer referral had been the last action taken following receipt of further evidence requested.

3.19 The sample was selected from new claims processed between
January 2004 and August 2004. The findings of 74% of new claims processed within 14 days of all information becoming available support Breckland District Council’s reported Best Value performance indicator for 2004/05 and the continuing trend for improvement.

36-day performance

3.20 Figure 3.6 shows Breckland District Council’s reported performance against the new claims Best Value performance indicator for the past 2 years and first 2 quarters of 2004/05. Breckland District Council had reported a significant improvement in its average time to process new claims, this had reduced from an average of 122 days in 2002/03 to 33 days in 2003/04 and from April 2004 to October 2004.

Source: Breckland District Council.

3.21 During the inspection Breckland District Council provided further performance information which confirmed it was achieving above the Standard of 36 days. Figure 3.7 shows the last 2 quarters of 2003/04 and the first
2 quarters of 2004/05. Although Breckland District Council’s performance showed a deterioration in the first quarter of 2004/05 it regained its performance in the second quarter. We discuss the reason for this later in this section.

Source: Breckland District Council.

3.22 Figure 3.8 provides the monthly performance breakdown from
April 2004 to September 2004 for the average number of days to process new claims.

Source: Breckland District council.

3.23 We were told that the slight deterioration in performance to an average of 40 days in June 2004 (and for first quarter of 2004/05) was a direct result of the relocation of Forest Heath Benefits Service to shared accommodation at Breckland. At the time of the inspection we found that the impact of this relocation had been effectively managed and performance levels had not only been re-established but had improved to an average of 29 days for August and 25 days for September. This confirmed a controlled and sustained improvement in Best Value indicator performance.

3.24 Figure 3.9 provides details from our sample of 30 new claims. It shows that 21 of the 30 claims sampled (70%) were assessed and a decision made within the Standard of 36 days from date of receipt of the claim. However
9 cases (30%) had taken over 36 days, of these 2 had taken over 60 days, the longest taking 111 days.

3.25 Our analysis found that the 3 longest cases both required referral to the Rent Officer, and in both cases referral had not been made until all evidence had been received and the case ready for assessment. However, it was the delay in obtaining information from the customer that was the issue although the late referral to the Rent Officer had added further to the delay. For example in the claim which took 111 days to process, the customer had delayed in providing clarification of the information provided on the claim form and for the tenancy agreement that had been submitted. The customer had provided the information late despite reminders issued by the Benefits Service, the customer had said that a family emergency was the cause for
the delay and the Assessor had decided to treat the case as a continuous claim. This confirmed Breckland District Council needed to identify reasons for delay and ensure the correct procedures and working practices were in place to support continuous improvement and meet its targets.

Source: BFI analysis

3.26 Figure 3.10 shows further analysis of our new claims sample, and illustrates the average number of days for each stage of the new claims process.

Source: BFI analysis

3.27 Our findings supported Breckland District Council’s reported performance against the Best Value performance indicators for processing claims. However, the range of days showed that in some cases Breckland District Council needed to monitor the reasons for delay to further improve its performance levels.

3.28 To improve performance levels Breckland District Council had undertaken a number of exercises to identify common errors and reasons for delay and produced a short report and recommendations. Its most recent report was produced in September 2004, it found that common errors included:

3.29 The report provided recommendations to address the errors found, the recommendations had been introduced using the team meetings to provide remedial training and awareness sessions. Team Managers undertook targeted checks to ensure these types of errors were no longer being made.

3.30 We found evidence in our sample of 30 new claims that supported these findings as the following delays were identified:

Exception reporting

3.31 Breckland District Council made effective use of the management information produced from its Benefits IT system and the 10% pre-notification checks undertaken. Further checks were made by the Financial Control Section to validate reported performance against the Best Value performance indicators, to identify reasons for processing delays and possible training requirements. We discuss the management checks undertaken in more detail in Management checking and assurance.

Factors that affect reported performance

3.32 From the date a claim to benefit is received there are a number of factors that can influence both the speed and accuracy of putting that claim into payment. Factors that can affect both speed and accuracy include:

Workflow management

3.33 Effectively managing the flow of work is a key element in ensuring that avoidable delays are minimised. It is important that all new claims are directed as soon as possible to the first step of the process to ensure that the first course of action can be taken.

3.34 Breckland District Council had a number of processes in place to effectively manage the flow of work. We were told that all claim forms and information received at reception were checked using a locally produced checklist completed by Customer Services staff.

3.35 Breckland District Council reported that all documents received were immediately scanned onto the Document Image Processing system and depending on staff availability they would also be indexed by Customer Service staff. If Customer Services staff were not available indexing was undertaken by Benefits Service staff, we discuss this process further in Customer services.

3.36 Breckland District Council did not use its Document Image Processing system to manage and monitor its workflow. Team Managers undertook this role receiving all post and checking that the image had been correctly scanned onto the Document Image Processing system. Incoming post was then sifted into 4 different work types:

3.37 Work was then stored on the Benefits Section in 4 clearly marked piles and Assessors took their daily workload directly from a pile depending on the priorities set, although urgents were always dealt with as a priority.

3.38 Team Managers monitored individual Assessors work through 10%
pre-notification checks. Additional checks were undertaken by the Financial Control Section, these were typically on cases taking 50 days or over to identify reasons for processing delays. We detail these checks further in Management and accuracy checking.

Remote Access Terminal usage

3.39 Obtaining evidence of IS or JSA(IB) through the Remote Access Terminal, rather than the customer being asked to provide documents from Jobcentre Plus is good practice, because it gives the best evidence and reduces the time needed to get it.

3.40 Breckland District Council had a system in place that provided maximum flexibility for its use of the Remote Access Terminal. It had 8 Benefit Assessors trained in its use and a daily rota system was in place for its operation.

3.41 Successful Remote Access Terminal checks were scanned and indexed onto the Document Image Processing system. If a check could not be fully undertaken a request was made to the Department for the information and the Benefits IT system was noted.

3.42 Our sampling confirmed that in 19 cases with IS or JSA(IB) in payment evidence was obtained through the use of the Remote Access Terminal. In addition interviews confirmed that the use of the Remote Access Terminal helped to speed up the processing of new claims.

Benefits IT system

3.43 The most should be made of available information technology to support an effective and secure benefits administration, and the technology deployed should assist the council in making progress against the E-government agenda.

3.44 Automation of processes should enable greater efficiency. Reliable and timely management information enables managers to monitor performance and make informed management decisions.

3.45 From sampling and interviews we found that Breckland District Council’s Benefits IT system provided effective support for deciding all types of HB and CTB claims and making benefit payments. We also found that appropriate management checks were in place to validate management information produced by the Benefits IT system and the reported performance against the Best Value performance indicators. We detail this further under Management information and assurance in the Strategic management section of this report.

3.46 The Benefits IT system had the facility to allow Assessors to set and use diary dates, daily reports were produced and these were used to manage and control work. Our sampling confirmed that Assessors also used the note pad facility to record all action taken to support the diary date recorded.

3.47 Assessors told us that although diary dates were set on its Benefits IT system, Assessors also used a pending system to monitor the response from customers to requests for information. However, Breckland District Council told us that management checks had identified an issue where some claims had been left in the pending file until the diary date was due although all information had been received prior to this date.

Verification policies and procedures

3.48 The scope of this focused inspection was to inspect and report on the issues that have a material influence on the speed of processing performance for new claims for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit by Breckland District Council. The speed of processing a new HB and CTB claim was only one part of the picture.

3.49 Local authorities must verify information supplied by customers to decide entitlement to benefit. This is an essential part of securing the gateway to the HB and CTB systems. Regulation 73(1) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 requires that:

3.50 There is a similar provision in regulation 63(1) of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992.

3.51 Breckland District Council had up-to-date written verification procedures and practices to ensure that:

3.52 Interviews confirmed that all staff involved in Benefits work had received initial Verification Framework training and that assessment staff received regular awareness training for all changes to HB and CTB at team meetings.

3.53 However, at the time of the inspection Customer Service staff did not attend these meetings and as a result were not fully aware of changes to HB and CTB processes. We detail this further under Internal working arrangements in the Strategic management section of this report.

3.54 Assessors told us that all claims were checked on receipt to ensure all evidence required was available before the claim was assessed. If further information was required the Assessor would write out at this stage, detailing the information required and the date that it should be returned by. These claims were then held in a pending file and if a response had not been received after 14 days a reminder was usually issued to the customer. We found this to be an effective process which prompted the customer to return the required information for the claim to be assessed, thereby speeding up the overall claim processing time.

3.55 Our sampling found that in all cases a Verification Framework control checklist had been used to check and record all of the information received. The Benefits IT system provided separate fields to record each area of verification required, fields not completed were easily identifiable and the completeness of verification formed part of the Team Managers’ 10%
pre-notification checks.

3.56 Our sampling and interviews found that Breckland District Council had processes in place to ensure that only original documents were accepted as evidence. Original documents were photocopied and stamped original seen, and then signed and dated by the authenticator. Additionally, if the claim form was received at either the main reception point or one of the caller or Presence offices a receipt was issued to the customer. This receipt also detailed any further information required from the customer to complete the claim.

3.57 Figure 3.11 shows the results of our verification sampling of 30 new claims processed between January and August 2004.

Source: BFI sampling

3.58 Sampling and interviews confirmed that crosschecks were made with information held on the Council Tax IT system and with previous claim information held on its Benefits IT system. The Document Image Processing system provided easy access to previous claim information and supporting documents. The verification checklist completed when a claim was processed recorded details of any crosschecks undertaken

3.59 We found that Breckland District Council met all of its regulatory requirements and the level of verification was of a high standard meeting the minimum requirements of the Verification Framework.

Registered Social Landlords

3.60 Breckland District Council had been involved in a pilot exercise which gave Registered Social Landlords the responsibility for verifying documentation and Benefits claim forms to improve customer service. Breckland District Council worked with 20 Registered Social Landlords and
6 of these operated the full Verification Framework scheme. Both the Benefits Manager and Training officer, along with officers from other councils, had provided ongoing training to Registered Social Landlords throughout Norfolk.

3.61 We were told that formally introducing the scheme had fostered an improved working relationship with landlords and had resulted in improved processing times. Our sampling supported this. Of the 30 cases we sampled, Registered Social Landlords in 20 cases had already checked verification, and in 10 of these 20 cases the first action on receipt by the council was assessment. This initiative had improved processing times for the council and as a result the landlord received payments more quickly.

3.62 The largest Registered Social Landlord in the area had a dedicated Benefits Assessor post based at their office in Dereham. Although the Registered Social Landlord had funded this post the Assessor remained within the Benefits Service management structure. The Assessors processed all claims for HB and CTB submitted to the Registered Social Landlord including any follow up action needed for claims with evidence outstanding. The Assessor liaised effectively with the Registered Social Landlord staff advising them of what stage a claim was at or what evidence was still outstanding.

3.63 At the time of the inspection the Benefits Assessor post was vacant but the Registered Social Landlord hoped that a member of staff would be in post and fully trained by January 2005.

Requirement to refer to Rent Officer

3.64 Regulation 12A of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 require a local authority to refer certain rent allowance claims to the Rent officer for a determination to be made on the level of rent eligible for HB. Regulation 12A(3) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 require the council to make this referral within 3 working days or as soon as practicable thereafter. The regulations also provide for an application to be made for a pre-tenancy determination.

3.65 Delays in making referrals to the Rent Officer can result in delays in the time it takes to process a claim.

3.66 Breckland District Council had written guidance to identify which claims should be referred to the Rent Service but did not have a documented process to detail at what point of the process cases should be identified or how they should be referred. The Benefits Assessors had a target to refer appropriate cases by facsimile within 24 hours of being identified. Team Managers checked if a referral was appropriate as part of the 10% pre-notification checks undertaken.

3.67 Breckland District Council had a process in place to monitor claims from the point of being referred to the Rent Service to their return. A nominated Assessor had responsibility for this process and made a weekly check. Outstanding referrals that had not been returned by the Rent Officer were investigated to establish the reason for the delay and to ensure an appropriate decision was received.

3.68 We found that although Breckland District Council monitored referrals sent to, and returned by, the Rent Officer, it did not monitor its own performance against the service level agreement with the Rent Service.

3.69 Breckland District Council acknowledged this was an area for improvement and told us that it would ensure that staff were made aware that appropriate Rent Officer referral cases should be identified as soon as possible following receipt of the claim. It also acknowledged that closer monitoring of its performance against the service level agreement was required.

3.70 Figure 3.12 highlights the time taken between the various stages of the process. There were 5 cases in our sample that were appropriate for, and had correctly been referred to the Rent Officer.

Source: BFI analysis

3.71 Our analysis found that the range of days from the date a claim was received to referral was between one and 85, with an average of 34 days. In 2 of the 5 cases the delays were due to enquiries required into discrepancies found between tenancy agreements and information supplied on the claim form. We were told that all enquiries were made prior to the referral being made to ensure the correct information was supplied to the Rent Officer. However, in the 3 remaining cases we found evidence of unnecessary delays.

3.72 To further investigate the Rent Officer referral process we undertook an additional sample of 12 claims for the period August 2004 to October 2004 where a Rent Officer referral had been made. We found that the average number of days from the date of claim to making a referral was 18, with a range from 2 to 41 days. Our sampling and interviews with staff confirmed that making a referral to the Rent Officer was typically the last action taken before assessment. This confirmed that action was required by the Benefits Service to avoid unnecessary processing delays. To avoid such delays Rent Officer referrals should be made in parallel with other further information gathering.

3.73 We confirmed that a service level agreement based on the national model was in place and that effective day-to-day liaison with the Rent Service had been established.

Payments on account

3.74 There may be instances when, despite the best efforts of the council and the customer it is not practicable to make a decision on a claim for rent allowance within the prescribed 14 days. Regulation 91(1) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 requires councils to make a payment on account if that impracticability has not arisen out of the customer’s failure to provide the information reasonably required by the council without good cause.

3.75 Payments on account should only be made when necessary and for as brief a period as possible, as they are not intended as a substitute for making a full decision and correct payment on a claim.

3.76 Our analysis found 2 claims out of the 30 sampled where a payment on account had been appropriate but had not been made. However staff told us that it was not usual practice to consider a payment on account as work was up-to-date and no backlog of claims existed. This was an area of concern that we raised with Breckland District Council.

3.77 Breckland District Council acknowledged that making payments on account was a statutory requirement and this was an area for improvement. It planned to ensure staff were made aware of when and how payments on account should be made and to introduce appropriate monitoring procedures.

Customer services

3.78 Customer Service is another important aspect in ensuring that the time taken to process claims is kept to a minimum. Councils should aim to deliver modern, efficient, secure customer focused public services that meet the needs of their customers.

3.79 We found that Breckland District Council was committed to providing a comprehensive customer service. Customer access to the Benefits Service was gained by a main reception point plus 4 other caller or Presence offices and a telephone contact team available to deal with customer enquiries. The Customer Services staff and telephone contact team were all benefits-trained and had access to the enquiry screens on the Benefits IT system and the Document Image Processing system. These staff were the first point of contact for customers and were able to deal with the majority of enquiries.

3.80 We comment on the service provided to its customers by Breckland District Council under the following headings:

Customer Reception point

3.81 Breckland District Council provided a main reception service for its customers available for 38.5 hours per week. Customers were seen on arrival and either dealt with immediately or had an appointment made with a Customer Services member of staff or a Benefits Assessor. We were told that appointments were usually available immediately, where this was not possible appointments were made for the following day.

3.82 The Customer Services staff maintained an appointments book and recorded details of customers names and telephone numbers when they arranged an appointment. Customer Services staff would contact customers to re-schedule appointments if for any reason the appointments needed to be cancelled, for example, if the Benefits IT system was unavailable.

3.83 Breckland District Council's main ethnic group whose first language was not English, were Portuguese. It had arrangements in place for an interpreter to attend Thetford reception and Dereham caller office at set times each week to deal with its Portuguese customers. The reception staff were aware of when the interpreter was available and would plan appointments accordingly. In addition, 2 of the Customer Services staff were learning to speak Portuguese. Breckland District Council had conducted customer surveys and had confirmed that there were no other ethnic groups in the area that required specific service needs.

3.84 Access to Benefits has been assessed against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and 1999. There was disabled access in place at the main reception point in Thetford and the Caller office in Dereham. Facilities for disabled access were also in place at the 3 other Presence offices used by Breckland District Council.

3.85 Customer Services staff told us that when a customer brought in a new claim it was checked to confirm the claim form was completed and that all the evidence required had been provided. A receipt was issued to the customer either advising that all necessary evidence had been provided or detailing what was outstanding and when it had to be provided by.

3.86 Regulation 73 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 states that customers are allowed 28 days to submit outstanding evidence. It was Breckland District Council’s practice to request outstanding evidence to be supplied within 14 days. This practice encouraged customers to provide any outstanding evidence as soon as possible. A reminder was issued if evidence had not been provided by the 14^th day allowing the customer a further 14 days to supply all relevant information required to decide the claim.

3.87 Original documents were photocopied, stamped original seen and returned to the customer. The copies were then scanned onto the Document Image Processing system by Customer Service staff when work priorities allowed. This avoided customers waiting for original documents to be scanned and prevented queues building up at the reception point.

3.88 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X However, if the staff had doubts about the authenticity of a document they immediately contacted fraud staff who would examine the document on behalf of Customer Services staff. XX 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 XXX

Caller and Presence Offices

3.89 Breckland District Council had one further Caller and 3 other Presence offices across the district in addition to the main reception point. They were based at Dereham, Watton, Attleborough and Swaffham.

3.90 The caller office at Dereham was equipped with a scanner and Customer Services staff there scanned all documents received onto the Document Image Processing system before they were sent to the main office in Thetford.

3.91 Customer Services staff based at the caller and Presence offices operated the same process as the main reception point at Thetford for claims received. Claims were checked for completeness, supporting documentation was photocopied and stamped original seen and a receipt was provided including details of any further evidence required.

3.92 A record of all the claim forms and documentation received at Presence offices was maintained and a copy of this record was faxed to the main council offices with the Benefits post at the end of every day. A photocopy of the first page of all claim forms received and checked was also kept at the Presence offices as proof of receipt. Pouches received at Thetford were then checked to ensure that all forms had been safely received.

Handling telephone calls

3.93 Breckland District Council’s telephone service was delivered through a Telephone Contact Team who were trained to deal with Benefits enquiries. At the time of the inspection 2 full-time staff provided this service.

3.94 Incoming calls went initially to the telephone team and, when the lines were busy, on to 3 additional telephone lines operated on a rota basis by Benefits Service staff.

3.95 The council had a target for telephone calls to be answered within
3 rings. Although monitoring statistics were not available staff and third parties told us that unanswered telephone calls was not an issue. Breckland District Council was planning to introduce a new call centre operating system that would allow it to monitor calls received and waiting times.

The Benefits claim form

3.96 Clear HB and CTB claim forms can help reduce the need for requests for further information from the customer and avoid potential delays. They also reduce the risk of customer confusion, error and fraud. Clear advice at the time of the claim can reinforce messages about the need to provide evidence of identity and income, and resolve concerns of those with limited documentation.

3.97 We looked at the design, layout and language of Breckland District Council’s claim form. A full analysis of the claim form can be found at Appendix B.

3.98 Our analysis showed that the claim form included some of the good practice features of the HCTB1 model claim form including:

3.99 We also found that claim forms were readily available on request by telephone, from its main reception point, caller and Presence offices, the council’s website and Registered Social Landlords.

3.100 In addition staff at the main reception, caller and Presence offices and Registered Social Landlords:

3.101 However, to ensure that the claim form clearly follows the HCTB1 model Breckland District Council needs to:

• include a version number and date on the claim form
• include an explanation of what happens when the local authority receive the form
• include questions that request details of:
  

Visiting

3.102 It is important that the Benefits Service is accessible to all members of the community, especially those customers who do not have access to public transport, are elderly, have learning difficulties or are housebound as this may delay the processing of their claim. Providing a comprehensive visiting service is an essential part of effective customer services.

3.103 Breckland District Council classified the visits it undertook either as Verification Framework visits or welfare visits. Benefits staff and customers were able to request visits which were then referred to Team Managers who checked that a visit was necessary and that the information required could not be obtained from any other source. This ensured any delay in the claims process could be avoided.

3.104 We were told that it took approximately 2 weeks from a request for a visit being made to the visit being undertaken. Due to the large geographical area covered by Breckland District Council it was not always practical or cost effective for visits to be undertaken immediately.

3.105 The Visiting Officer recorded the details of the visit including the evidence that was seen on a locally produced form. The record of the visit was then scanned onto the document imaging system.

How performance is validated

3.106 The final area a council needs to consider when looking at speed of processing new claims is what procedures they have in place to ensure that management checks take place and what assurance these provide for them. Although management checking does not of itself improve processing times it is important to know that claims are being processed accurately as well as quickly.

Management and accuracy checking

3.107 Effective management checks provide information about:

3.108 The Audit Commission, in Countering Housing Benefit Fraud: A Management Handbook, recommends that councils quality check at least 10% of claims to prevent errors entering the process at the beginning. The check should take place before a decision letter is sent to a person affected.

3.109 Management checking provides assurance on the effectiveness and security of Benefits administration, it also provides valuable management information on individual performance. This can be used to inform management decision making and subsequent organisational interventions.

3.110 At an operational level, Breckland District Council had appropriate management and accuracy checks being undertaken before and after the decision letter had been issued.

3.111 Breckland District Council had reported 98% of cases processed accurately for 2002/03, meeting the Best Value performance indicator for accuracy and achieving Standard. However, its performance for 2003/04 was reported as a slightly reduced 97%. We were told that this was due to minor processing errors which had been addressed through:

3.112 We confirmed that the Financial Control Section continually undertook a sample check of new claims processed and recorded its performance on its accuracy return against the Best Value performance indicator to the Department.

Pre-payment checks

3.113 We confirmed that Team Managers undertook a 10% pre-payment check of claims randomly selected by the Benefits IT system. Although Team Managers used a high level list of criteria that must be checked, it did not provide lower level detail, for example, had the Rent Officer referral been made within 24 hours of the case being identified.

3.114 Team Managers recorded the performance of individual Assessors and the specific errors made. Any consequent and training needs were also identified. However, this information was not recorded formally into one central document of common errors. This meant that an opportunity was missed to undertake a full analysis of the types of errors found or establish the baseline from which to monitor improvements.

3.115 Errors found on claims were e-mailed back to the Assessor to
re-assess within 24 hours, these cases were returned to the Team Manager to be checked again prior to payment. Whilst we were on-site consideration was being given to the introduction of a new performance related scheme linking individual performance to pay scales.

3.116 We were told that when poor performance was identified consideration was given to the reason why and whether 100% checking was appropriate. Following new entrant training the Training Officer continued to undertake a 100% check on new Benefits Assessors work until their level of performance was judged to be satisfactory. This was a good practice.

3.117 We found that the results of the pre-notification checks undertaken by the Team Managers were forwarded to the Financial Control Section. As part of its monitoring function, it looked at the extent and reasons for delays and common errors found.

Post-notification checks

3.118 The Financial Control Section had the responsibility to validate the accuracy of the information produced by the Benefits IT system to establish Breckland District Council’s performance against the Best Value performance indicators. In addition to receiving the outcomes of the 10% pre-payment check performed by the Team Managers this section performed a number of checks to identify delays, user and system errors.

3.119 We found that cases were randomly selected by the Benefits IT system which produced a number of reports for this purpose. Cases were checked to identify common errors and reasons for delay in cases that had taken in excess of 50 days to assess.

3.120 Although its performance against the Best Value performance indicators were recorded into a Performance Indicator Summary report the reasons for delay and common errors were not recorded in a central report to summarise findings. This was a lost opportunity to identify trends or where common failings were occurring. We were told that this information was informally recorded and discussed at management meetings and was fed into planned awareness sessions for team meetings.

3.121 Although we have acknowledged Breckland District Council’s management checking and exception reporting programme was comprehensive, to secure the further improvements planned for the Benefits Service it needs to further enhance its analysis of management information obtained through management checking and Benefits IT system reports. Breckland District Council acknowledged the need to consider the depth of its management checking and performance monitoring to ensure that reasons for processing delays could be identified and addressed.

Previous
Next