3.17 We consider that SABC is professional in dealing with callers and provides a good standard of customer service.
3.18 There is one reception outlet in Castle Street, dealing with HB and CTB enquiries, council tax and concessionary travel. Other LA-related enquiries that staff at Castle Street cannot clear are referred to the reception enquiries desk at the Guildhall.
3.19 The Castle Street reception is open from:
3.20 Council Tax section staff are assigned to reception duties. Some staff administered HB in the past and so have sufficient knowledge of the scheme to be able to provide information without constant referral to HB assessment staff. HB assessment staff see claimants either by appointment or when required because the issue is considered to be more complex. Although there are cubicles available equipped with appropriate computer terminals, they do not provide sufficient privacy for interviews with claimants.
3.21 SABC provides a visiting service to claimants who are unable to call at the office in person. A specialised officer visits claimants, to help with completion of claim forms and give advice on a wide range of benefit matters as well as to obtain appropriate evidence in support of the claim. Under an SABC policy, staff must refer cases for a visit in writing, giving the reasons. We found the procedures in place to be working well. Team leaders make random checks on referrals to see if a visit is appropriate and the Visiting Officer decides on the urgency and necessity of requests made.
3.22 SABC has a formal corporate complaints procedure in place for identifying and handling written letters of complaint. The procedure distinguishes between complaints and requests to review benefit entitlement. All written complaints, including those received at the Castle Street site, are passed on the day of receipt direct to the Chief Executive’s office at the Guildhall, where they are logged. The Chief Executive’s office is responsible for ensuring a formal reply is sent, after seeking comments from appropriate departmental staff as required. Details of the complaints policy and customer comment leaflets are available in reception areas at both the Guildhall and Castle Street.
3.23 We found that the post opening process does not take place in a secure environment and there is scope for improvements. Section 3 of the BFI Good Practice Guide outlines the good practice in this area.
3.24 All post is delivered by Royal Mail to the Chief Executive’s office at the Guildhall at about 08.00 each day. The post is sorted into relevant departments, but not opened by staff at this stage. Each department is responsible for opening and distributing its own post. Staff in the Borough Treasurer’s department are responsible for opening the HB/CTB post.
3.25 We observed the post opening process on 27 April 1999. We found a number of weaknesses in the security of the processes. Our major concerns are that:
3.26 On completion of the post opening process, HB and council tax post is placed in separate secure pouches and sent by courier to the Castle Street site. The post arrives at Castle Street at about 11.00 each day. The council tax pouch is passed unopened to the Council Tax section, which is responsible for distributing it. The HB/CTB post is passed unopened to a benefits clerical assistant, who opens the pouch and sorts post into alphabetical order before passing items to each assessment team.
3.27 Reception staff, under the supervision of their team leader, open post received through the letterbox at Castle Street. Items of value such as returned HB cheques are cancelled and recorded, then passed to HB assessors for action.
3.28 XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXX XX XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXX XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX. Other items of value, for example bank books, pension order books and savings books, are recorded as valuables in a register. Copies are taken for the attention of the benefit processors and the valuables are returned by first class post on the same day as receipt.
3.29 We have established that SABC has in place recognised good practices on post opening, as identified in the BFI Good Practice Guide. These include:
3.30 Despite these good practices, IA, the Chief Benefits Officer (CBO) and the Chief Cashier all reported that the current post opening procedures remain insecure. At the time of the inspection we were told about new proposals to improve existing arrangements. It was suggested that in addition to the good practices already in place, SABC would:
3.31 We support these proposals and also recommend that SABC should:
3.32 By introducing these proposals we believe that the security of post opening would be tightened and safeguards implemented.
3.33 We conclude that SABC has established a good working relationship with BA, but there is scope to improve existing arrangements. At Appendix E we have set out in more detail the interface between BA and SABC, making recommendations on how the existing arrangements could be enhanced.
3.34 There is an SLA covering benefit administration in place between SABC and BA for 1998/99, which is currently being reviewed for 1999/2000. The SLA mirrors the national framework, with some amendments made to suit local needs. The SLA is subject to an annual review, with provision for regular meetings to be held on a quarterly basis. We understand that these quarterly meetings have been held regularly, are attended by all relevant parties, and minutes document all problems identified. However, we were unable to find evidence of a formal robust monitoring process that would ensure that objectives outlined in the SLA are achieved and would allow SABC sign off the compliance certificate at the end of the year.
3.35 SABC feels that liaison with BA in general is good and judges liaison with BA staff at the ES offices to be very good. This is mainly due to personal contact between SABC officers and their BA counterparts. A series of exchange visits has been undertaken, which has helped staff to increase their understanding of each other’s roles.
3.36 BA has a specialised section handling all incoming telephone calls. SABC is restricted to 5 hours’ telephone access per day. SABC does not consider this level of service a problem, as BA accepts urgent calls at any time. No such restrictions are placed on calls made to BA staff working on the ES site.
3.37 It is the usual practice to link NHB1 forms (the BA claim form for HB/CTB) and computerised notices of entitlement for each claim before dispatch to the LA. We understand, however, that SABC and BA have agreed that BA can send NHB1 forms separately to SABC as soon as BA receives them, to enable SABC to issue an HB/CTB claim form. We found that this process helps SABC, as it can issue its own claim form and subsequently determine the claim at the earliest opportunity.
3.38 The recent installation of a RAT has given SABC direct access to BA systems. The RAT enables SABC to be more proactive in dealing with benefit queries on new and repeat claims without the constant need to contact BA. It should also help to reduce both parties’ administration costs, as the number of written enquiries should reduce as staff become more familiar with the system.
3.39 We conclude that SABC needs to establish a closer working relationship with ES and there is scope to improve existing arrangements. At Appendix F we set out in more detail the interface between ES and SABC, making recommendations on how the existing arrangements could be enhanced, primarily by the agreement and implementation of an SLA. We found there is limited liaison and that ES staff knowledge and awareness of HB/CTB is negligible.
3.40 In the following paragraphs we report on:
3.41 The BFI Good Practice Guide highlights some of the components of successful assessment and determination of claims.
3.42 We consider SABC’s standard of verification of evidence is mostly sound, although we believe that improvements are needed.
3.43 SABC uses the VF requirements as guidance when considering the need to obtain further information, for example details of capital and other benefits being received. XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XX. SABC ensures that staff attach any papers from a previous claim to the current one before payment is made. Risk groups are now being allocated to new claims for in-claim visits or postal checks.
3.44 We examined a random sample of 49 new claims and 20 renewals to find out the time taken to request further information from the claimant. SABC’s draft procedures manual states that staff should request from the claimant any further information needed on receipt of a new or renewal claim within 7 calendar days. Figure 3.2 shows the time taken to request further information.
| Fig. 3.2: Time taken to request further information | ||||
|
Rent
rebate |
Rent |
CTB |
Total |
|
| Evidence requested between 0 and 7 days |
11 |
4 |
8 |
23 |
| Evidence requested between 8 and 14 days |
2 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
| Evidence requested more than 15 days |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
| No further evidence required |
17 |
10 |
14 |
41 |
| Total |
31 |
15 |
23 |
69 |
Source: BFI analysis
3.46 Figure 3.2 shows that in 28 cases (41%) there was insufficient information to enable the claims to be processed. Of these cases, 7 were renewals and 21 were new claims. In 8 of these cases the information was requested on the same day that the claim form was received. It is not clear why such a large number of claims were received without all the necessary information. A contributory factor may well be the design and content of the claim form and the additional information required in line with VF.
3.47 When all the information or evidence is received, the claim file is passed to the assessment officer, who makes further checks to ensure that all the evidence has been collected in line with procedures.
3.48 We took a sample of 20 renewal cases and 20 new cases input since July 1998, to examine the verification process. The results are shown in Figure 3.3.
| Fig. 3.3: Evidence verified | ||||
|
Verified |
Not verified |
Not applicable |
Total |
|
| Capital |
7 |
Nil |
33 |
40 |
| Income (including IS or JSA) |
36 |
4 |
Nil |
40 |
| Rent liability |
11 |
2 |
27 |
40 |
Source: BFI analysis
3.49 Our sample shows that full verifying evidence on capital, income and rent liability was not obtained in only 6 cases (5%). In one of these cases, evidence of ChB had not been requested from the claimant. During our on-site inspection SABC told us that it now requests evidence of ChB in accordance with the VF.
3.50 We commend SABC for using the guidance from the VF to verify claims. XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX. Full verification in partnership with a risk management system will reduce the opportunity for fraud and error to occur in administration.
* Highlighted parts of this report are omitted from the published version as they may assist fraudsters or may contain confidential commercial information.