Customer Services
3.1 HB and CTB are vital payments made to help people on low incomes. Ideally claims should be dealt with quickly and accurately. The standards covered in this section identify what is required to provide an administration that delivers quick and accurate decisions on HB and CTB claims.
Backlog of work
3.2 Before
the introduction of the document management system in
October 2003 Chelmsford Borough Council made a manual count of items of post
outstanding. Between April 2003 and September 2003, this fluctuated between
1,990 and 2,147 items. This related to a caseload of approximately 8,300 HB
and CTB cases and a monthly intake of post over that period of 3,200 items.
Consequently, the backlog was equivalent to just under 3 weeks intake.
3.3 Every piece of post that came into the office was scanned onto the document management system. If there were no other items of post waiting to be dealt with for a particular customer, a ‘process’ was started for that item of post. Where a process had already been started, new items of post for that person were attached to the process. A single process could therefore contain several items of post to be dealt with. Since the introduction of the document management system, Chelmsford Borough Council had been measuring its backlog of work by using a record of processes on the system.
3.4 Chelmsford
Borough Council was unable to provide reliable figures on the size of the
backlog of work for the period between October 2003 and
April 2004. It provided details for later months showing 3,901 outstanding
processes at 1 May 2004, 2,988 at 1 June 2004 and 2,283 at 28 June 2004. Although
this is an encouraging trend, the effects of this improvement had at the time
of our inspection, still to result in improved processing times.
3.5 Chelmsford Borough Council had taken a range of actions to deal with its arrears of work:
· it had monitored the level of outstanding work
· it had ring-fenced a backlog of work and passed this to a backlog team of contract staff to allow the other assessment teams to concentrate on incoming work
· during our inspection it changed working practices for staff. New claims were allocated to one group of staff and changes of circumstances to another group
· although there was no allocation of cases to individual officers by alphabetical split or geographical area, Chelmsford Borough Council had made some changes to increase personal ownership of work shortly before our inspection. Work coming out of pending, rent officer determinations and remote access terminal replies were sent back to the officer who had taken the previous action
· the Customer Services team produced a daily list of cases where information had been received which would lead to an overpayment if not dealt with promptly. This was introduced 2 weeks before our inspection. Assessment staff told us that previously overpayments were frequently caused by failure to act quickly on changes of circumstances
· various items of work were passed to the assessor to deal with before they were sent for scanning including:
- notices seeking possession
- remote access terminal replies
- determinations from the rent officer
- communications from the Council Tax section
- facsimile messages addressed to a specific officer.
3.6 The backlog team was set up to enable the permanent assessment teams to deal with all new incoming work. However, further backlogs had developed. The backlog team was originally introduced in January 2004 to clear a specific backlog of 3,500 documents and 600 paper files. However, Chelmsford Borough Council had to extend the contract to cover a second block of 2,500 documents in April 2004 and a third block of 2,500 documents in May 2004. The backlog team was due to finish this block of work in early July 2004, but the authority was aware that another backlog was building up in June 2004.
3.7 Chelmsford Borough Council had not carried out an analysis of the incoming work and staff resources available. This is needed to identify how many cases each assessor must deal with on average each day for the Benefits service to be able to keep up with new work arriving. Chelmsford Borough Council was not, therefore, able to set individual targets or confidently produce a plan to avoid the creation of further backlogs of work.
3.8 While a backlog exists, processing of those claims that have been outstanding for a long period of time will continue to impact adversely on overall average processing times, regardless of how quickly the daily intake of new claims is decided.
3.9 Chelmsford Borough Council did not have a documented backlog plan with clear targets, timescales, priorities, resources, inter-dependencies, risks and details of how targets and progress will be reported to senior managers, Members and staff. The development of such a plan would help the authority to effectively manage new work and clear the backlog.
|
Recommendation |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council carries out an analysis of the incoming work and staff resources available, to identify how many cases each assessor must deal with on average each day for the Benefits service to be able to keep up with new work arriving. |
New claims - speed of processing
3.10 Regulation 76(3) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 states that every claim for HB must 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.
3.11 In addition to the statutory requirements, the Best Value regime also requires local authorities to measure and report the average time for processing new claims.
3.12 Chelmsford Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it:
· did not meet the target of processing 90% of new claims within 14 calendar days of receiving all information
· did not process new claims, on average, within 36 calendar days
· was not using exception reports on claims not meeting the 14-day and the 36-day processing Standards.
3.13 Chelmsford Borough Council’s performance for processing all types of new claims was poor. We were concerned that the significant delays experienced by customers could have an impact on their welfare.
3.14 Figure 3.1 shows Chelmsford Borough Council’s 14-day performance from 1 April 2002 to 26 May 2004. This shows that performance had deteriorated over this period. Performance in 2002/03 put Chelmsford Borough Council in the third quartile in 2 of the quarters in the year and the bottom quartile in the other 2 quarters.
|
Fig. 3.1: Percentage of new claims processed within 14 days |
|||
|
Claim type |
2002/03
% |
2003/04
% |
1 April 2004 to 26 May 2004 % |
|
Rent rebate |
29 |
3 |
0 |
|
Rent allowance |
51 |
56 |
47 |
|
CTB only |
46 |
50 |
45 |
Source: Chelmsford Borough Council
3.15
Since the large scale voluntary transfer of Chelmsford Borough Council’s housing
stock to Chelmer Housing Partnership in March 2002, the number of rent rebate
claims has been minimal. Only the figure for 2002/03, therefore, relates to
a significant number of rent rebate cases. The performance in respect of the
few remaining rent rebate cases (claims from people who were placed in bed
and breakfast accommodation by Chelmsford Borough Council’s Housing department)
was poor. However, the one case in our sample of new claims took 32 days to
clear, against the Standard of
36 days.
3.16 We
examined a sample of 30 new claims decided between
19 January and 28 May 2004. Figure 3.2 shows that the percentage decided within
14 days of receipt of all information in our sample was lower than the figure
reported by Chelmsford Borough Council for 2003/04.
|
Fig. 3.2: Sample of new claims decided within 14 days |
|||
|
Decided within 14 days |
|||
|
Type of case |
Number of claims decided |
Number |
% |
|
Rent rebate |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Rent allowance |
19 |
7 |
37 |
|
CTB only |
10 |
3 |
30 |
|
Total |
30 |
10 |
33 |
Source: BFI analysis
36-day performance
3.17 The
Standard is to process claims from receipt to decision within
36 days. Figure 3.3 shows that Chelmsford Borough Council’s reported performance
in terms of the percentage of new claims processed within
36 days had declined over the period from 1 April 2002 to 26 May 2004.
|
Fig. 3.3: Percentage of new claims processed within 36 days |
|||
|
Claim type |
2002/03
% |
2003/04
% |
1 April 2004 - 26 May 2004 % |
|
Rent rebate |
37 |
1 |
0 |
|
Rent allowance |
78 |
74 |
64 |
|
CTB only |
72 |
69 |
60 |
Source: Chelmsford Borough Council
3.18
Chelmsford Borough Council had set a target to process claims
in
40 calendar days for 2003/04.
The time taken to decide claims from the date of receipt had worsened over
the months since April 2003. The
average number of days for processing new claims in 2003/04 was 83, which
was well outside both the internal target set by Chelmsford Borough Council
and the Standard of 36 days and placed it in the bottom quartile of local
authorities.
3.19 Figure 3.4 shows reported performance against Best Value performance indicator 78a for each quarter of 2003/04. This shows that performance was not at Standard for any quarter, and declined considerably in the third quarter. This coincided with the introduction of the document management system in October 2003, the new Benefits IT system in November 2003 and becoming compliant with the Verification Framework in October 2003. The problems associated with the introduction of the new IT systems are considered under Strategic Management.
|
Fig. 3.4: Average time for processing new claims |
|
|
Period |
Days |
|
1 April 2003 – 30 June 2003 |
60 |
|
1 July 2003 – 30 September 2003 |
75 |
|
1 October 2003 – 31 December 2003 |
98 |
|
1 January 2004 – 31 March 2004 |
101 |
|
Full year 2003/04 |
83 |
Source: Chelmsford Borough Council and the Department
3.20 Performance in the early months of 2004/05 had declined further, with Chelmsford Borough Council reporting average clearance times of 150 days and 132 days for April and May 2004 respectively. We note, however, that at the beginning of 2004/05 the backlog team was asked to clear the cases that had been outstanding the longest. This will have had a temporary adverse impact on average clearance times. However, the action taken was, at the time of our inspection already having a positive impact in other ways. The amount of customer contact had decreased, suggesting that customers were making fewer queries about claims caught up in the backlog of work.
3.21 In our sample of 30 new claims only 7 (23%), 5 rent allowance cases, one rent rebate and one CTB only, were decided in 36 days or less from receipt of the claim at the designated office. Figure 3.5 shows performance, broken down by the type of case. The Benefits service was organised so that teams dealt with both rent allowance and CTB only cases and Chelmsford Borough Council had a policy of giving priority to cases where the landlord had issued a notice seeking an order of possession.
|
Fig. 3.5: Sample of new claims – average days taken to decide claim |
||
|
Type of case |
Number of claims decided |
Average number of days |
|
Rent rebate |
1 |
32 |
|
Rent allowance |
19 |
84 |
|
CTB only |
10 |
117 |
|
Total |
30 |
93 |
Source: BFI analysis
Exception reporting
3.22 For a local authority to be at Standard it should produce exception reports on claims not meeting the 14-day or 36-day new claims processing Standards that identify:
· claims that have yet to be assessed
· the reasons for delays in processing
· trends and patterns in the reasons for delay.
3.23 Chelmsford Borough Council did not produce and use exception reports to investigate the length of, and reasons for, delays.
Improvement analysis
3.24 We analysed the results of our sampling to identify any areas that would give an indication of weaknesses in Chelmsford Borough Council’s processes. Figure 3.6 sets out our findings.
|
Fig. 3.6: New claims processing – days taken for each stage in the process |
||
|
Work step |
Average days |
Range days |
|
Date of receipt (at designated office) to date of first action |
52 |
0 – 139 |
|
Date of first action to all information or evidence available |
52 |
3 – 213 |
|
Date of all information or evidence available to date of decision |
46 |
0 – 218 |
|
Date of decision to date of first payment |
3 |
0 – 10 |
|
Total days (from claim received to first payment) |
92 |
14 – 214 |
Source: BFI analysis
3.25 Figure 3.6 shows that the average time taken from receipt of a claim to the first payment being made was 92 days and that there were significant delays at all stages of the process except between the date of decision and issuing the first payment. The following paragraphs give examples of delays at particular stages.
3.26 Two claims in our sample were received from Jobcentre Plus and one from The Pension Service. It took an average of 12 days from the date of receipt by the Department and receipt by Chelmsford Borough Council. Closer liaison and monitoring of service level agreements with Jobcentre Plus and The Pension Service might enable a reduction in such delays.
3.27 It took an average of 6 days between receipt of the claim form and the form being scanned and indexed. This action took over a week in 10 of the cases (33%) in our sample and one case took 25 days. We were told that there had been backlogs of scanning and indexing work at times since the introduction of the document management system. However, we were told that scanning and indexing was up-to-date at the time of the on-site phase of the inspection. Various documents concerning a claim may be received at different times. Backlogs of work at the scanning and indexing stage can therefore have an impact more than once on the clearance time for a single claim. It is important for Chelmsford Borough Council to ensure that delays are not allowed to build up at this stage of the process.
3.28 There were delays between documents being indexed and cases being allocated to assessors’ work trays. Analysis of our sample revealed that it was common for a case to be referred to 3 separate work trays on the document management system. For example, it might be moved to the new claims tray, the backlog team miscellaneous tray and the backlog team new claims tray, before being referred to an assessor. It is not possible to measure whether this, in itself, created delays as the case may have been delayed if it had gone straight into the assessor's work tray due to the backlog of work. However, Chelmsford Borough Council should ensure that work is passed directly to the appropriate tray to avoid any possible delays.
3.29 The need to request additional information led to delays in processing. In 9 (30%) of the 30 cases in our sample the assessor considered it necessary to request further information from the customer. The following case studies give examples of action creating delays at this stage.
|
Fig. 3.7: Case studies - delays in processing |
|
The assessor requested information that was already held. There was a difference of opinion between 2 assessors handling the claim at different stages concerning what further evidence was required. Requests were made 4 times for the same evidence, with no explanation of whether the assessor had considered if the claim was defective or if a different method of trying to obtain the information was appropriate. |
Source: BFI analysis
3.30 Chelmsford Borough Council had not gathered information on the reasons why customers had not provided enough information to enable a claim to be processed first time, or whether the requests for further information were always necessary. Analysis of this information could help Chelmsford Borough Council to introduce improvements in its processes.
3.31 Our sample included 18 claim forms that had been received at the Benefits service reception rather than through the post. Chelmsford Borough Council’s reception staff considered whether any additional information or evidence was required from the customer and, if so, requested it verbally.
3.32 Reception staff completed a customer counter sheet showing what documents had been provided by the customer. In 2 of the 18 cases from our sample (11%) reception staff had used this form to indicate what further evidence they had asked the customer to provide. However, in the other cases it was not possible to tell whether or not reception staff had identified that further evidence was required, or what the customer had been asked to provide.
3.33 We
found an average delay of 46 days between all the necessary evidence being
available and the decision. In 15 cases (50%) in our sample the delay at this
stage was over a month and in 4 cases (13%) it was over
100 days. In the worst case Chelmsford Borough Council held sufficient information
for the claim to have been decided on 7 October 2003 and the claim was referred
to an assessor on 23 October 2003. However, as a result of a combination of
unnecessary action and inactivity it was not decided until 12 May 2004, 218
days after all the necessary evidence was received.
3.34 We were told that assessors could not rely on the document management system giving correct information on the date of the oldest claim outstanding, as it has been altering the ‘date received’ date when adding later correspondence to the system. Chelmsford Borough Council needs to take action with its IT provider to resolve this problem so that team leaders can easily identify and examine cases which have been awaiting action for an unusually long time.
3.35 Analysis of our sample revealed actions taken that had led either to delays or unnecessary work. These are illustrated by the following case studies in Figure 3.8.
|
Fig. 3.8: Case studies - delays as unnecessary work |
|
The assessor failed to mark a case as cleared on the document management system after deciding the claim. This led to another assessor unnecessarily handling the case. There was a failure to index all action concerning a new claim to that particular claim process on the document management system. This made it difficult for the assessor to see the full picture and led to duplicate remote access terminal enquiries being made because it was not evident to the assessor that one was already awaiting reply. Three claim forms from the same customer were not linked and were worked on independently by different assessors. A notice seeking possession was attached to the existing new claim process and as a result was not marked on the document management system as high priority. There was a delay of 9 days between decision and payment on a case showing a notice of possession. Actions were taken one after the other rather than carrying out both actions simultaneously at the earliest opportunity. A check of entitlement to Income Support (IS) was only requested after the customer had responded to a request for other information. A case remained in the pending tray until the pending date was reached rather than coming out of that tray into a work tray as soon as the information requested was received and scanned. When a case came out of the pending tray because a reply to a remote access terminal request had not been received, the assessor returned it to the pending tray without a duplicate request being made. The assessor sent a case to the pending tray for no apparent reason. |
Source: BFI analysis
3.36 Most of these problems suggest the need for further training or closer management of staff. The need for Chelmsford Borough Council to give more formal training and monitoring is dealt with under Strategic Management.
3.37 Other aspects that might have had an impact on clearance times were identified from discussions with managers and staff:
· problems with the IT systems. These are considered under Strategic Management
· assessment and reception staff told us that customers frequently failed to sign the declaration on the claim form, thinking that signing the permission for the authority to pay benefit direct to the landlord was the only signature needed. We were told that this was to be altered in the next batch of claim forms printed
· reception staff and assessment staff told us they were not convinced that they shared a common understanding of evidence requirements
· there was no formal management checking of the quality of work performed by reception staff
· discussions with assessment staff showed that there was inconsistency between officers dealing with claims where the customer failed to provide information requested. Chelmsford Borough Council’s procedural guidance stated that, unless there were particular circumstances such as vulnerability of the customer, the claim should be made defective 28 days after a request for information. However, assessors were following different procedures on when and whether to send the customer a reminder, for example:
- allow 28 days for the information to be provided then make the claim defective
- allow 28 days for the information to be provided, then send a reminder allowing a further 14 days, then make the claim defective
- put the case into the pending tray for 14 days, then send a reminder saying that information should be received within a further 14 days, return the case to the pending tray for a further 14 days, then make the claim defective
· better use of the notepad facility on the IT systems would help other officers who subsequently have to deal with the case. This was also supported in the findings from our sample.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council: |
· takes action with its IT provider to ensure that the document management system gives correct information on the date of the oldest claim outstanding so that team leaders can easily identify and examine cases which have been awaiting action for an unusually long time |
Payments on account
3.38 Regulation 91(1) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 requires local authorities to make a payment on account if:
· they are unable to decide a rent allowance claim within 14 days of receipt of the claim, and
· that inability has not arisen out of the customer’s failure, without good cause, to provide the necessary information which the local authority has requested whether on the claim form or otherwise.
3.39 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.
3.40 Chelmsford Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it did not:
· monitor rent allowance claims to identify cases where payments on account were required
· make payments on account for rent allowance claims in accordance with regulation 91(1) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987
· produce a monthly age-analysis report, which identified payments on account that had been in payment for more than 4 weeks.
3.41 The Benefits service’s Operational and Internal Security Policy stated that Chelmsford Borough Council will aim to:
· monitor all rent allowance claims, where a decision cannot be made, to establish whether a payment on account is applicable
· make a payment on account within 14 calendar days of receipt of the claim in all applicable cases
· monitor all payment on account cases to ensure that a final decision is made or payments are ceased
· produce reports on cases where a payment on account has been made and has continued to be paid in excess of 4 weeks.
3.42 However, the Benefits service was not following this policy. We found that:
· there was no procedure in place to identify and examine rent allowance claims before the 14-day stage was reached to identify whether a payment on account was appropriate
· Chelmsford Borough Council was only making payments on account when a rent officer determination was awaited
· Chelmsford Borough Council did not carry out any monitoring of cases where a payment on account was being made. It therefore had no assurance that payments were not being allowed to run on indefinitely.
3.43 Figure
3.9 shows the number of payments on account made from
17 November 2003 to 31 May 2004. Information is not available concerning earlier
periods as it could not be produced by Chelmsford Borough Council’s previous
Benefits IT system. It shows that Chelmsford Borough Council did not make
payments on account for housing association cases as these cases were not
referred to the rent officer.
|
Fig. 3.9: Payments on account |
||
|
Type of case |
Number
of cases where payments on account were made from |
Number of cases where payments on account were made from 1/4/04 to 31/05/04 |
|
Rent allowance claims from housing association tenants |
0 |
0 |
|
Other rent allowance claims |
68 |
61 |
|
Total |
68 |
61 |
Source: Chelmsford Borough Council
3.44 We examined our sample of new claims and found out of 9 cases where a payment on account was appropriate to comply with the legislation, only one (11%) had been made. There were 3 cases in the sample where a payment on account was appropriate pending a determination by the rent officer:
· in the first, payments on account had correctly been made
· in the second, a referral was made to the rent officer, but the payments were not recorded on the Benefits IT system as payments on account. As a result the wording on the decision notice was incorrect and the case had been recorded for statistical purposes as fully decided
· in the
third, payment had correctly been made using the indicative rent level and
a referral made to the rent officer. However, the payments were not recorded
on the Benefits IT system as payments on account. As a result the wording
on the decision notice was incorrect and the case had been recorded for
statistical purposes as fully decided. The Rent Service returned the referral
with a query as it had been completed incorrectly by the assessor. Chelmsford
Borough Council received the referral back on
5 April 2004, but it was not allocated to a work tray as requiring action.
On 2 June 2004 action was still outstanding on the Rent Service's query.
3.45 Only one of the cases in our sample had a determination from the rent officer. A full decision had subsequently been made.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council: |
|
· introduces a procedure to identify and examine rent allowance claims before the 14-day stage is reached to identify whether a payment on account is appropriate · makes payments on account for rent allowance claims where legislation requires · produces a monthly age-analysis report which identifies payments on account that have been in payment for more than 4 weeks. |
Verification policies and procedures
3.46 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:
…a person who makes a claim shall furnish such certificates, documents, information and evidence in connection with the claim…as may be reasonably required by the appropriate authority to determine that person’s entitlement to housing benefit…
3.47 There is a similar provision in regulation 63(1) of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992.
3.48 Chelmsford Borough Council became fully compliant with the Verification Framework in October 2003. It was close to Standard in terms of its verification policy and procedures. However, it was not fully at Standard as:
· it was not following up and resolving discrepancies in evidence
· there was a lack of consistency in evidence sought
· it did not have policies, procedures and practices in place to ensure that management checks were performed accurately and consistently.
3.49 By implementing the Verification Framework, Chelmsford Borough Council had put in place policies to ensure that customers provided all the certificates, documents, information and evidence required to support their claims. The claim form clearly set out what information and evidence customers needed to provide. An analysis of Chelmsford Borough Council’s claim form is shown at Appendix B.
3.50 Discussions with staff involved in receiving documents and verification action confirmed their knowledge of the need to ensure that all documents provided as evidence were supplied as originals rather than photocopies. Staff who accepted documents for scanning or photocopying certified that the document seen was the original and dated the certification. They also entered a unique personal identifying code so that the officer certifying the document could be identified if necessary. In our sample of 30 new claims we saw one (3%) where not all the documents were stamped and one where the stamp was not legible.
3.51 All claim forms and supporting evidence received by Chelmsford Borough Council were scanned and indexed on receipt. The scanning officer checked the quality of each image and re-photocopied or re-scanned as necessary. The standard of legibility of most images was high. However, in our sample of 30 cases we came across 4 instances (13%) where the image was of poor quality.
3.52 Staff had available to them the Verification Framework and a procedural manual specific to the document management system being used by Chelmsford Borough Council. At the time of our inspection the procedural manual had not been updated to take account of changes to action required under the Verification Framework from April 2004.
3.53 Chelmsford Borough Council provided training on verification action to all Benefits service staff before implementing the Verification Framework.
3.54 Ultraviolet scanners were available on the counter and in the post room. Staff involved in accepting documents told us they had been trained in the use of these.
3.55 Benefits assessors completed a form on the document management system to show whether they had seen evidence that met requirements. They used this form as a checklist to ensure that all aspects had been verified. Although this form did not state what evidence had been accepted, the evidence itself could be seen on the document management system.
3.56 The verification policy stated that where appropriate, crosschecks should be made and discrepancies followed up and documented. However, this was not always happening in practice. In our sample of 30 new claims we found 7 instances (23%) of discrepancies not having been identified or followed up. These included:
· unexplained regular payments into a bank account not being queried
· a failure to look into entitlement to Retirement Pension which had not been declared, but which other evidence suggested was in payment
· failure to investigate payments of share dividend shown on a bank statement when no shares had been declared
· failure to ask the customer about savings in a case where none had been declared, but wages were being paid into a bank account
· unexplained discrepancies between recently received claim forms not investigated.
3.57 Staff told us that they were not confident that they all applied the same standard when considering what evidence was required. We saw some evidence of this in our sampling. For example, in one case an assessor requested further evidence, but a different assessor later decided that the case could be assessed without the need for this evidence. In another case an assessor requested certain evidence, but a second assessor later decided that the first request for evidence did not include all that was required.
3.58 We also saw an instance of an assessor fully deciding a case while at the same time requesting further evidence, and 2 instances of a request being made for evidence which was already held.
3.59 At the time of our inspection 3 team leaders were carrying out management checks. These covered all aspects of verification. However, there was no procedure in place to ensure that these management checks were being performed correctly and consistently.
3.60 We examined our sample of 30 new claims to identify if Chelmsford Borough Council had correctly verified claims. Figure 3.10 provides an overview of our findings for the key aspects of a claim that require verification.
|
Fig. 3.10: BFI’s assessment of Chelmsford Borough Council’s standard of verification from cases sampled |
|||
|
Verification item |
Number requiring verification |
Number where sufficient evidence held on file |
% verified |
|
National Insurance |
27 |
25 |
93 |
|
National Insurance |
9 |
7 |
78 |
|
Identity – customer |
27 |
27 |
100 |
|
Identity – partner |
9 |
9 |
100 |
|
Rent liability |
19 |
16 |
84 |
|
Residency |
27 |
26 |
96 |
|
Council Tax liability |
23 |
23 |
100 |
|
IS, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA(IB)) or Pension Credit |
10 |
8 |
80 |
|
Income – customer |
17 |
13 |
76 |
|
Income – partner |
7 |
4 |
57 |
|
Capital |
16 |
9 |
56 |
|
Non-dependants |
2 |
2 |
100 |
Source: BFI analysis
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council: |
|
Verification of identity
3.61 Since 6 September 1999, sections 1(1A) and 1(1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (as amended) require HB and CTB customers, and any other person in respect of whom benefit is claimed, to provide:
· a statement of their National Insurance number and information or evidence establishing that the number has been allocated to them, or
· information or evidence enabling the National Insurance number allocated to them to be ascertained.
3.62 If a person does not have a National Insurance number, they should apply for one and provide all the necessary information or evidence to enable a number to be allocated to them.
3.63 Chelmsford Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it failed to verify National Insurance numbers in all cases.
3.64 However, we identified the following strengths:
· appropriate evidence of identity was obtained in all the cases in our sample
· Chelmsford Borough Council included the standard of verification of identity in its management checks
· the procedural instructions were those in the Verification Framework
· staff knew to resolve any discrepancies when verifying identity.
3.65 We examined our sample of 30 cases for evidence of verification of identity. There was adequate evidence of identity in all 27 of the cases where this was required in respect of the customer, and all 9 where it was required in respect of the customer’s partner.
3.66 Our findings on the verification of National Insurance numbers are set in out in Figure 3.11 below. There were 2 cases (7%) without adequate verification of the National Insurance numbers. In both of these neither the customer’s nor the partner’s National Insurance number was verified. In one of the cases this failure was part of a general failure of verification action on the case. The customer had said that he had submitted evidence, but there was no record of the evidence on the document management system. In the other case a remote access terminal enquiry was requested, but the case was decided without a reply being received.
|
Fig. 3.11: Verification of National Insurance numbers of customers and partners in sampled claims |
|||
|
Type of case |
Number of cases requiring verification |
Verification satisfactory |
|
|
Number |
% |
||
|
Customer |
27 |
25 |
93 |
|
Partner |
9 |
7 |
78 |
Source: BFI analysis
|
Recommendation |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council ensures it verifies National Insurance numbers in all cases. |
Verification of residency and liability to pay rent
3.67 Section 130(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 provides that a person is entitled to HB if:
...he is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling in Great Britain which he occupies as his home.
3.68 Similarly, section 131(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 provides for CTB:
The main condition for the purposes of subsection (1) above is that the person concerned –
(a) is for the day liable to pay Council Tax in respect of a dwelling of which he is resident.
3.69 These subsections mean that, before a local authority can award benefit, it has to be satisfied about both residency and liability to pay rent and or Council Tax.
3.70 The most secure way to verify residency is to visit a customer at the dwelling. However, other methods may be useful, such as:
· sight of utility bills
· hand delivery of initial payments
· internal records such as parking permits
· effective liaison with landlords.
3.71 None of these methods, in isolation, prove residency, but will add to the overall picture, which, when considered in relation to the claim and other evidence supports the customer’s application.
3.72 Chelmsford Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it failed to verify liability to pay rent and residency in all cases.
3.73 However, we identified the following strengths. Chelmsford Borough Council:
· had policies and practices to ensure that only original documents were used to verify the customer’s liability to pay rent and residency
· had procedures and practices to ensure that the customer resided at the address provided on the claim form
· confirmed through its management checks that the customer’s residency and liability to pay rent had been verified
· followed up and resolved discrepancies identified through crosschecking of information and recorded the actions taken as a result
· linked its residency checks with its housing records and the work of its housing officers.
3.74 We examined our sample of 30 cases for evidence of verification of rent liability. Our findings are set out in Figure 3.12 below.
|
Fig. 3.12: Verification of rent liability in sampled claims |
|||
|
Type of case |
Number of cases requiring verification |
Verification satisfactory |
|
|
Number |
% |
||
|
Rent rebate claims |
1 |
1 |
100 |
|
Rent allowance claims |
18 |
15 |
83 |
|
Total |
19 |
16 |
84 |
Source: BFI analysis
3.75 In one of the 3 cases without adequate verification of liability to pay rent, the evidence accepted did not provide the information required by the Verification Framework. In another, the poor quality of the image meant that the assessor could not have seen the start and end dates of the tenancy.
3.76 There were links between the Council Tax and Benefits IT systems which meant that the assessor was alerted if there was a discrepancy between the information entered concerning CTB and that held on the Council Tax system. In all cases in our sample where liability to pay Council Tax was at issue, it had been verified by this system check.
3.77 We also examined our sample of 30 cases for evidence of verification of residency. Our findings are set out in Figure 3.13 below. The only case where residency was not adequately verified was the case mentioned above where there had been a general failure of verification action.
|
Fig. 3.13: Verification of residency in sampled claims |
|||
|
Type of case |
Number of cases requiring verification |
Verification satisfactory |
|
|
Number |
% |
||
|
Rent rebate |
1 |
1 |
100 |
|
Rent allowance |
17 |
16 |
94 |
|
CTB only |
8 |
8 |
100 |
|
Total |
26 |
25 |
96 |
Source: BFI analysis
3.78 Chelmsford Borough Council was carrying out visits to check the customer’s residency and ensure that customers were receiving the correct rate of benefit. The visits were done in accordance with the data match resolutions and risk-based reviews set out in the Verification Framework. At the time of our inspection the authority was carrying out all the interventions by visit rather than doing any by telephone or post.
3.79 Visits are an effective means of verifying residency, but they are not necessarily the most cost-effective way of carrying out the reviews required under the Verification Framework. In the light of Chelmsford Borough Council’s performance on the speed of processing claims, the authority should consider carrying out a proportion of the reviews by other methods. This could enable Chelmsford Borough Council to divert resources it was using on reviews to processing work.
3.80 Prior to April 2004, visiting officers carried out visits to gather further evidence and to obtain signatures on unsigned claim forms, but had not done so since. Welfare visits and visits at the request of fraud investigators to help assess whether fraud investigation was appropriate were still carried out. We were told that management considered this change necessary as all the visiting resource was required on review work if the authority was to meet its quota of interventions.
3.81 There may be cases where sending out a visiting officer to verify documents or to obtain a signature might be the most appropriate, the quickest and the most cost-effective course of action. Chelmsford Borough Council needs to reconsider its decision to completely abandon such visits.
3.82 We were told that visits were always notified unless the notification letters had not been sent out for some reason. The Verification Framework gives examples of when un-notified visits may be appropriate.
3.83 Discussions with the visiting officers confirmed that they followed the Verification Framework in the verification action taken at visits.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council: |
|
· provides staff training on the verification of liability to pay rent and residency and ensures verification takes place in all relevant cases · considers carrying out a proportion of reviews by post or telephone · provides guidance for staff on when it would be appropriate to refer a case for a visit to verify documents or to obtain a signature · provides guidance for visiting officers on when to carry out un-notified visits based on a risk analysis and local knowledge. |
Verification of receipt of IS, JSA(IB) and Pension Credit
3.84 The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, Schedule 3, paragraph 10, Schedule 4, paragraph 4 and Schedule 5, paragraph 5, provide that when the customer receives IS or JSA(IB) the local authority must disregard a customer’s income, earnings and capital. There are similar provisions in the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992.
3.85 As part of its strategy to eradicate pensioner poverty, the government has introduced Pension Credit. Pension Credit came into effect from 6 October 2003. The key elements of Pension Credit are:
· guarantee credit, to ensure a minimum level of income to customers aged 60 and over
· savings credit, which provides additional income for pensioners over 65 who have made some provision for their retirement by having, for example, a small second pension or savings.
3.86 Where a customer is entitled to guarantee credit or guarantee credit and savings credit, The Pension Service will notify the local authority, and the customer will automatically receive full HB or CTB.
3.87 Local authorities award full HB or CTB for as long as the customer is entitled to guarantee credit. Customers who are only entitled to savings credit have to claim HB and CTB as normal.
3.88 Local authorities are required by legislation to use The Pension Service’s assessment of the pensioner’s income and capital, the Assessed Income Figure. This means that for standard HB and CTB claims when savings credit only is in payment, local authorities will not need to collect details of a pensioner’s income and capital. Instead they will rely on the figure provided by The Pension Service.
3.89 Before a local authority can assume the customer has no income or capital, it must obtain confirmation from Jobcentre Plus or The Pension Service that the customer is in receipt of IS, JSA(IB) or Pension Credit.
3.90 Chelmsford Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it failed to verify entitlement to IS, JSA(IB) or Pension Credit in all cases.
3.91 However, we identified the following strengths. Chelmsford Borough Council:
· verified, through its management checks, that confirmation of IS, JSA(IB) or Pension Credit was obtained
· followed up and resolved discrepancies identified through crosschecking of information and recorded the actions taken as a result.
3.92 Figure 3.14 sets out the findings from our sample. In one of the cases where verification action had not been adequate, the case had been decided without evidence of IS or JSA(IB) entitlement having been sought. In the other case a remote access terminal enquiry had been requested, but there was no evidence on the document management system of a reply to the enquiry.
|
Fig. 3.14: Verification of IS, JSA(IB) and Pension Credit entitlement in sampled new claims |
|||
|
Type of case |
Number of cases requiring verification |
Verification satisfactory |
|
|
Number |
% |
||
|
New claims |
10 |
8 |
80 |
Source: BFI analysis
3.93 Of
the 8 cases where Chelmsford Borough Council confirmed proof of entitlement
to IS, JSA(IB) or Pension Credit, it used the remote access terminal in 4
cases, obtained letters of confirmation from Jobcentre Plus in
2 cases and verified using a benefit payment order book and a current award
notification in the remaining cases.
3.94 We were told that there had been significant problems concerning remote access terminal enquiries when the new IT systems were first introduced. Staff requiring checks thought that the document management system was printing out the requests for the remote access terminal operators. However, this was not happening. As a result, the remote access terminal operators were not making enquiries and cases were waiting in the pending tray for a reply when requests had not actually been issued. It took some weeks for this problem to be identified.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council: |
|
· provides staff training on the verification of entitlement to IS, JSA(IB) and Pension Credit and ensures verification takes place in all relevant cases · takes action with its IT provider to resolve the problem of requests for remote access terminal checks not being automatically printed so these enquiries can be processed in the most efficient way possible. |
Verification of income and capital
3.96 In cases when HB and CTB customers are not in receipt of IS or JSA(IB), the local authority must verify the income and capital of the customer and any partner.
3.97 Chelmsford Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it failed to:
· verify income and capital in all appropriate cases
· follow up and resolve discrepancies identified through crosschecking of information.
3.98 However Chelmsford Borough Council:
· had policies and practices to ensure that it accepted only original documents to confirm the customer’s financial position
· verified, through its management checks, that confirmation of income and capital was obtained.
3.99 We analysed the results of our sample of new claims to identify whether income had been verified to the standard required by the Verification Framework. Figure 3.15 sets out our findings.
|
Fig. 3.15: Verification of income in sampled new claims |
|||
|
Type of case |
Number of cases requiring verification |
Verification satisfactory |
|
|
Number |
% |
||
|
New claims |
17 |
13 |
76 |
Source: BFI analysis
3.100 In
one of the 4 cases where verification of income was not satisfactory there
was a failure to fully verify the income of the customer. In the other
3 cases there were failures to fully verify the income of both the customer
and the partner. We saw examples of assessors failing to use their initiative
in querying inconsistencies in the evidence provided. The case studies set
out in Figure 3.16 provide details of this.
|
Fig. 3.16: Case studies - inconsistencies in evidence provided |
|
Retirement Pension was not declared on the claim form, but both the customer and partner were well over pension age, Pension Credit had been claimed and payments of Retirement Pension into a bank account were shown on bank statements. These factors should have led the assessor to ask about Retirement Pension. However the case was assessed with no Retirement Pension taken into account. The case was decided taking figures for 2 occupational pensions that were given on the claim form. These conflicted with payments shown on bank books, but no action was taken to resolve this conflict. The bank books showed 5 regular payments being paid into the account. These were not all accounted for by information given on the claim form. This was not queried. On the claim form the customer ticked the box to show no other income. The image of the claim form was not clear. A bank statement in the partner's name showed weekly payments into the account from a limited company. The assessor did not query this. |
Source: BFI analysis
3.101 We analysed the results of our sample of new claims to identify whether capital had been verified to the standard required by the Verification Framework. Figure 3.17 shows the results.
|
Fig. 3.17: Verification of capital in sampled new claims |
|||
|
Type of case |
Number of cases requiring verification |
Verification satisfactory |
|
|
Number |
% |
||
|
New claims |
16 |
9 |
56 |
Source: BFI analysis
3.102 Further analysis of our sample revealed the types of errors in verifying capital. Our findings are set out in Figure 3.18.
|
Fig. 3.18: Analysis of failures relating to the verification of capital |
|
|
Type of failure |
Number |
|
Customer did not declare shares, but share dividend was shown as received on bank statements |
1 |
|
Bank statements did not cover an adequate period |
3 |
|
Bank account declared. A letter from the customer stated that he had supplied evidence, but this was not recorded on the document management system |
1 |
|
Customer declared no savings but salary was paid into bank account. No request was made for evidence of savings |
1 |
|
Bank statements not provided for all accounts |
1 |
Source: BFI analysis
3.103 Our findings on the standard of verification of income and capital show that, despite having appropriate policies and procedures, there was a failure by Chelmsford Borough Council to verify and crosscheck information. This left the gateway to benefits insecure and increased the risk of fraud and error entering the system.
|
Recommendation |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council provides staff training on the verification of income and capital of customers and their partners and ensures verification takes place in all relevant cases. |
Verification of non-dependant’s circumstances
3.104 HB
and CTB are reduced for each non-dependant normally living with the customer.
It is in the customer’s interest to provide details of
non-dependants because the amount of any deduction depends upon the circumstances
of the non-dependant and, if they are in remunerative work, that person’s
gross income. If a customer does not provide details of a
non-dependant’s income, the highest relevant deduction must be applied.
3.105 Chelmsford Borough Council was at Standard in this element because it:
· had policies and practices to ensure that it accepted only original documents to confirm non-dependants’ circumstances
· requested income details for all non-dependants in the customer’s household
· applied
the highest relevant deduction when evidence of a
non-dependant’s income was not provided by the customer
· showed, through its management checks, that it was satisfied that the customer was eligible to receive HB or CTB before making a decision on a claim
· followed up discrepancies identified through crosschecking of information and recorded the actions taken.
3.106 Our new claims sample included 2 claims with a non-dependant. A request for proof of the non-dependant’s income was made and correctly verified in both cases.
Management checks
3.107 Effective management checks are an important means of providing assurance on the:
· integrity and security of benefit processes
· quality of work such as the evaluation of performance against legislative and other requirements
· training and development needs of staff
· identifying weaknesses in processes.
3.108 Local authorities adopt different approaches to the level and extent of checks. The Audit Commission, in Countering Housing Benefit Fraud - A Management Handbook, recommends that local authorities quality check at least 10% of claims as a way to prevent errors entering the process at the beginning. The check should take place post-decision, but before the local authority sends a decision notice to a person affected. This should ensure that any errors that may have been made can be corrected before the customer is notified of the decision.
3.109 These accuracy checks should cover all aspects of types of claims and administration. They may be focused on areas of particular risk, with higher levels of checking for:
· the work of inexperienced staff
· complex cases.
3.110 In addition to these initial accuracy checks, the Best Value regime also requires local authorities to undertake management checks after a claim has been decided and paid. These checks are intended to provide a statistical measure across their full caseload of the level of accuracy of claims processed by the local authority. As such, it is used as an indicator to improve performance in this key area.
3.111 The required sampling process for the Best Value performance indicator on accuracy has been set nationally, based on rigorous statistical methods to enable the level of performance to be compared nationally. Sampling is therefore not linked to the recommended 10% minimum management check. It is important for statistical purposes that selection of the sampling for the check on final accuracy is done randomly.
3.112 Chelmsford Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because its checks did not include checking whether any decision to pay the landlord direct was based on the application of the fit and proper person test. Chelmsford Borough Council’s assessors confirmed that they did not apply this test.
3.113 Chelmsford
Borough Council changed its procedures for management checks in May 2004.
Prior to this, checks were not always carried out
pre-notification and the authority acknowledged it had not always kept
up-to-date with its checks. The new system contained the following good practices:
· a random 10% selection was made automatically by the Benefits IT system
· issue of the notification and payment was inhibited until the check had been carried out
· an audit trail of the checks was available from the Benefits IT system
· additional checks were carried out on new staff and on cases that had taken longest to assess.
3.114 Chelmsford Borough Council was not making full use of the results of the checking performed. Individual errors were fed back to the assessor whose work had been checked, but the authority was not:
· collating and analysing the results of checks to identify trends or weaknesses in processes
· giving feedback to all assessors on the types of errors being identified
· feeding the results of management checks into staff training or development plans.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council: |
|
Requirement to refer to rent officer
3.115 The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 require a local authority to refer certain rent allowance claims to the Rent Service for a determination to be made on the level of rent eligible for HB. The local authority is required to make this referral within 3 working days or as soon as practicable. The Regulations also provide for an application to be made for a pre-tenancy determination.
3.116 Chelmsford Borough Council was not at Standard in this element because it did not:
· have a procedure in place to identify appropriate cases quickly upon receipt of the claim or notification of change
· provide
any evidence that it referred applications to the rent officer within
3 working days of receiving claims
· provide any evidence that it referred pre-tenancy determinations to the rent officer within 2 working days of receiving the requests from customers
· monitor the timeliness of determinations returned from the rent officer
· have a procedure in place to ensure that determinations were returned from the rent officer
· make
decisions on claims, on receipt of rent officer determinations, within
2 working days of receipt.
3.117 However, Chelmsford Borough Council:
· had procedures which identified appropriate cases for referral to the rent officer
· had a signed service level agreement with the Rent Service
· included in its management checking that, where appropriate, a rent officer referral was made
· had a good relationship with the Rent Service and attended quarterly liaison meetings, during which any quality issues were discussed.
3.118 Chelmsford Borough Council sent referrals to the Rent Service by facsimile and the Rent Service sent determinations back through the post unless they were urgent. At the time of our inspection the local Rent Service was in discussion with its linked local authorities about electronic transfer of information between them.
3.119 The rent officer told us that routine contact between the Rent Service and the Benefits service was good. Telephone contact from the Rent Service to the Benefits service was generally to an answer machine, but the Rent Service was content with this and considered that response times were good. Chelmsford Borough Council had a nominated officer for liaison with the Rent Service and liaison meetings were held quarterly.
3.120 Chelmsford Borough Council provided us with details of the number of payments on account made for cases that had been referred to the rent officer since 17 November 2003. The results are shown in Figure 3.19. This shows that over 85% of the cases had more than 6 payments on account made on them. This indicates the need for Chelmsford Borough Council to ensure that determinations were returned from the rent officer and to monitor the speed with which they were being returned and dealt with.
|
Fig. 3.19: Number of claims being paid on account where the rent officer determination was awaited |
||||
|
Number of payments |
Number of cases |
% of total |
||
|
17 November 03 -
|
01 April 04 -
|
17 November 03 -
|
01 April 04 -
|
|
|
1 – 2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1.64 |
|
3 – 6 |
10 |
6 |
14.71 |
9.84 |
|
7 – 52 |
57 |
53 |
83.82 |
86.88 |
|
Over 52 |
1 |
1 |
1.47 |
1.64 |
|
Total |
68 |
61 |
100 |
100 |
Source: Chelmsford Borough Council
3.121 Chelmsford Borough Council provided us with details of the referrals made in the period 16 November 2003 to 31 May 2004 for which a rent officer determination had been obtained. The results shown in Figure 3.20 show that the Benefits service had received a rent officer determination in less than half the referrals made in that period, again showing the need for Chelmsford Borough Council to monitor action concerning referrals to the rent officer.
|
Fig. 3.20: Rent officer determinations |
|||
|
Number of cases requiring rent officer determination |
Number of determinations obtained |
% of rent officer determinations obtained |
|
|
Total |
134 |
65 |
49 |
Source: Chelmsford Borough Council
3.122 As part of our sampling, we examined rent allowance claims to establish if Chelmsford Borough Council made rent officer referrals in all appropriate cases. In our sample of 30 new claims there were 3 cases (10%) where a referral was appropriate. Referrals had been made in all 3 cases. On average the delay in these cases between Chelmsford Borough Council receiving the claim and sending the referral to the Rent Service was 72 days.
3.123 Chelmsford Borough Council had procedures in place for determinations received from the Rent Service to be given to the assessor for action before being sent for scanning.
|
Recommendations |
|
We recommend that Chelmsford Borough Council: |
|
· puts a procedure in place to identify cases requiring reference to the rent officer quickly upon receipt of the claim or notification of change · ensures it refers applications to the rent officer within 3 working days of receiving claims · ensures
it refers pre-tenancy determinations to the rent officer within
· monitors the timeliness of determinations returned from the rent officer · puts a procedure in place to ensure that determinations are returned from the rent officer · ensures it makes decisions on claims, on receipt of rent officer determinations, within 2 working days of receipt. |