Overall performance

1.12 The council joined the Dorset Anti-Fraud Partnership in April 2005. Before this, the council had developed various counter-fraud policies and strategies and worked in partnership with other councils. However, the findings from our sample showed that its policies were not always followed, as we found that the quality of its investigations and processes was poor. By failing to thoroughly investigate suspicions of fraud, it had missed the opportunity to take the appropriate action against benefit fraudsters and gain subsequent subsidy rewards. The council acknowledged that its approach to sanction activity was poor.

1.13 Our inspection focused on the council’s performance since it joined the Dorset Anti-Fraud Partnership. Significant improvements had been made by:

• introducing counter-fraud policies and procedures
• developing a counter-fraud business plan
• increasing its levels of sanction activity.

1.14 Since April 2005 performance in the application of sanctions had improved. The council had applied 4 sanctions between June and September 2005 and we were told a further 5 cases were being considered.

1.15 However, we identified areas where further improvement was required including the need to introduce a comprehensive management checking framework for its counter-fraud activity. In addition, it needed to ensure that all investigations fully complied with appropriate legislation.

1.16 Our sample of new claims and changes of circumstances showed a
good standard of verification with appropriate documents and evidence being collected and recorded to satisfy the evidence requirements of the Verification Framework.

1.17 The council was proactive in seeking opportunities to work jointly with other local authorities and external partners to achieve efficiency and economic benefits. An example of this was the WestWey partnership, the merger of Revenues and Benefits services between Weymouth and Portland Borough Council and West Dorset District Council.

1.18 The implementation of recommendations from internal and external auditors was effectively monitored by the council’s Audit Committee.
We were told that Members took an in-depth interest in ensuring high-level recommendations were implemented, and were very supportive of the Internal Audit and Benefits services.

Security

1.19 Following the council’s decision to join the Dorset Anti-Fraud Partnership, it revised its policies to support its counter-fraud activities. For example, Members approved the revised Anti-Fraud strategy and Sanction Policy in October 2005.

1.20 The Dorset Anti-Fraud Partnership had developed a Counter Fraud Business Plan for 2005/06. The plan included actions to support the integration of the council into the partnership and stated a commitment to review:

• all council policies to ensure they met the objectives of the partnership
• the training needs of the council’s Investigation Officers to ensure they met an agreed professional standard.

1.21 Fraud awareness sessions had been delivered to Contact Centre staff, however, additional sessions needed to be planned for benefit processing staff.

1.22 Formal management checks were not being carried out during investigations, and these were needed to provide assurance on the quality of work and the extent to which the investigative process complied with legislation. However, procedures were introduced in October 2005 to track investigations and monitor any delays through monthly file reviews with Investigation Officers.

1.23 A post investigation quality check was introduced in September 2005, however, this process needed to be reviewed to avoid unnecessary duplication of work.

1.24 In order to provide assurance that sufficient evidence and information
was collected and recorded and that investigations were progressed in a timely manner, the council needs to concentrate its efforts on:

• using management information to effectively identify risk and target investigative effort
• ensuring all avenues of investigation had been pursued
• ensuring proper records were maintained to show how, when and why Authorised Individual’s powers were used.

Claims administration

1.25 We found the council collected and recorded sufficient information
to fully verify all claims in our sample. The council provided good customer service in this area, however, could aim to improve this process by gathering all information at the first point of contact where appropriate.

1.26 Good use was made of management information to check and analyse the accuracy of benefit payments. Data was used to measure trends and to identify training needs. Feedback to staff was effective and errors were immediately corrected.

1.27 Statistical returns were validated before being issued to the Department. However, checks should be extended to provide assurance that claim dates shown on the system match those on the claim form.

Resource management

1.28 The Benefits service had set itself targets that were comprehensive, stretching, and sought continuous improvement. These targets were reviewed annually, and agreed by Members and senior officers before being adopted. Clear links had been drawn between the targets of the service, and the wider corporate aims.

1.29 The council was proactive in monitoring its achievement against plans and targets. The Revenues and Benefits Manager was accountable through quarterly and annual reports to Members and senior officers for any non-achievement of targets.

1.30 The Benefits service effectively sought opportunities to work jointly with other local authorities and external partners to gain efficiency and economic benefits for example:

• forming the Dorset Area Training Coordinator role
• joining the Dorset Anti-Fraud Partnership in 2005
• merging the Benefits services of both Weymouth and Portland Borough Council and West Dorset District Council.

1.31 The council’s Internal Audit service was closely involved with the Benefits service, providing assurance by performing a range of activities, including:

• sampling benefit claims to check if these were processed correctly and in accordance with procedural guidance and legislation
• checking the reconciliation of the Benefits IT system comparing benefits expenditure and likely subsidy received on a monthly basis
• carrying out a risk assessment of the WestWey Benefits service merger.

Summary of recommendations

1.32 The following tables show all the recommendations we have made in this report, grouping them by their priority.