An inspectorate of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Report

Charter Mark - Awarded for excellence

Conclusions

Main conclusions

Getting it right

1.1 Customer service in Torbay is good. There are 3 connection offices that claimants can visit to hand in forms or documents or to have more in-depth interviews. Telephone calls to the office are answered promptly, though there are restrictions on the times that calls will be taken. Torbay is currently revising its claim form in line with the BFI model claim form.

1.2 Torbay introduced the Verification Framework (VF) in February 1999. Internal audit (IA) reports quarterly on VF and found Torbay to be 100% compliant in the last quarter. There is a separate team which verifies new claims before they are passed for assessment, but assessors often check verification as well, leading to double handling of claims. We make recommendations designed to remove this double handling.

1.3 The main issues from our sampling of new and renewal claims showed that:

1.4 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X We identified that in 92% of cases, the rent liability had been verified in line with VF requirements.

1.5 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX

1.6 Torbay has no plans to address its current backlog of work. Speed of processing is very poor, with only about 45% of assessments made within the 14 day target. Payments on account (POAs) are not considered in all appropriate cases.

1.7 Torbay has recently created 2 quality control posts to conduct management checks. This has been an area of recognised weakness in the past, where Torbay has not achieved the Audit Commission (AC) recommendation that at least 10% of claims should be quality checked.

1.8 The speed of linking post has improved with a new way of working but support staff are not trained to complete their tasks fully. This means that benefit officers are having to sort files into the correct sections within the filing systems.

1.9 There is a draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) between Torbay and the Rent Service (RS), and both parties state that there is a very good working relationship between the 2 organisations. We found however that there were some delays in sending referrals to the Rent Officer (RO).

1.10 We found evidence of joint working between Torbay, the Employment Service (ES) and the Benefit Agency (BA) with exchange visits and joint training undertaken.

Keeping it right

1.11 We identified that the backlog of work is currently threatening the ability of Torbay to continue to ensure that renewal claims are being assessed without a break in payment. At the time of our inspection, benefits were only able to look at claims within the week they expire. As well as addressing the immediate issue of renewal claims expiring, Torbay needs to look at the longer term profile of renewal claims due to expire and attempt to even out any peaks and troughs in the workload. In addition we found:

1.12 The need for claimants to notify the authority of changes in circumstances is publicised in leaflets and on award notices, but changes in circumstances that may lead to an overpayment are not always prioritised by the benefit section. Torbay also needs to improve the way it deals with foreseeable changes by making more use of appropriate benefit periods.

1.13 We highlight significant concern on the lack of control on suspensions of benefit payments. These are not currently being monitored appropriately to ensure that they exist for no longer than 28 days.

1.14 Though, in July 2001, after our on-site work, there ceased to be notices of determinations, and they were replaced by Decision Notices, Schedules 6 to the HB and CTB regulations still apply, with limited consequential amendments. Hence our findings are still relevant. The content of Torbay’s notice of determination met the majority of the regulatory requirements, but we found issues relating to:

1.15 Torbay’s post opening and cheque production procedures are secure with a few minor exceptions that we outline in this report XXXX XXXX

1.16 We also found that Torbay

1.17 The visiting section has a backlog of category A verification visits, but is making efforts to clear this. There is no monitoring to ensure that timescales for the verification visits are met, but the visiting supervisor monitors the section’s performance. We identify concerns on the action taken where a previously unnotified change of circumstance is declared during a visit. Visiting staff need to ensure that full details of any changes are recorded during the visit, and that action is taken where appropriate to amend the benefit to avoid ongoing under or overpayments.

1.18 Torbay has a training officer and a central register of training is maintained. A schedule is maintained for training planned in the immediate future, but this does not include a long term training plan. We note that although a training needs analysis was undertaken in 2000, the outputs from this have not been acted on. There are up-to-date procedure notes available to all staff.

1.19 Some staff appraisals have not been completed recently, with some cases outstanding back to the summer of 2000.

1.20 We have significant concerns about the current role of the systems team, and note significant security issues around the system access levels of staff on this section.

1.21 We identified effective security of access to sensitive areas, controlled via the use of a secure swipe card system. Issue and retrieval of these swipe cards are controlled.

1.22 We note that Torbay was involved in an experimental scheme to ensure that if a change of circumstance is notified to either Torbay, the BA or ES, then a copy is sent to the other 2 agencies. Whilst this appears to be an excellent initiative, no formal analysis has been undertaken to measure the success of the scheme.

1.23 We identified that post received from the BA and ES was not always date stamped by those agencies, and that there were delays in the transfer of post from the BA and ES to Torbay.

Putting it right

1.24 There are weaknesses in all stages of dealing with overpayments. There are significant delays in assessing overpayments following receipt of a notification of a change of circumstances. Overpayments are not classified properly, which would lead to Torbay claiming incorrect subsidy.

1.25 Torbay needs to improve overpayment recovery by using all possible recovery methods. Since April 1997 the debt owed to Torbay has increased by nearly £1 million. Whilst there are good practices in recovering overpayments through BA benefits and other local authorities (LAs), Torbay have yet to introduce recovery through the county court under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (SSAA) section 75(7). Torbay were acting on this at the time of our on-site work and we recommend that this is introduced as a matter of urgency. In addition Torbay need to specifically address the levels of old debt on both the benefits and the debtors system.

1.26 Torbay uses two fraud management databases. This is due to the original system developing faults, so a backup system is used. This causes double handling and the situation needs urgent attention.

1.27 Torbay needs to analyse fraud referrals more effectively. The referral form used by the fraud section needs to be revised to obtain more details of the alleged fraud and to provide better feedback.

1.28 Fraud awareness training has been given to benefit and other staff in Torbay, but training records to monitor effectiveness are poor.

1.29 Non-returned renewal claims are not always investigated by the fraud section owing to lack of staff and resources in that section but work in this area has in the past identified fraudulent activity. Torbay also needs to analyse the results of Housing Benefit Matching Service (HBMS) activity and their outcomes.

1.30 The fraud section has a fraud hotline which is a freephone number and is publicised on leaflets and posters. There are problems in receiving calls that are not for the fraud section. The local media is used to publicise fraud drives.

1.31 File maintenance on the fraud section needs to be improved with separate fraud files set up from the start of the investigation. Torbay has a good record of using interviews under caution (IUCs) and has adopted the new incentive scheme. This will require more in-depth investigation methods and techniques. We found that the quality of investigations could be improved with further work needed on some of the files we looked at. Over the last 3 years Torbay has carried out 8 successful prosecutions. With appropriate expansion of the section, this work provides a firm basis for more extensive deterrent activity, especially in the light of the new subsidy scheme, which Torbay has opted to partake in.

1.32 There was some evidence of management checks on fraud cases but Torbay needs to keep adequate records.

1.33 There is some good liaison with Benefit Fraud Investigation Service (BFIS) and there have been joint exercises. There is an SLA, but some targets for the exchange of information are not being met by both organisations.

Making sure the strategy works

1.34 We were pleased to note clear progress in developing a counter fraud strategy, fully supported by Members. There are appropriate strategies for counter fraud work which are consistent with the government’s strategies to combat fraud and error. This is supported by the recently introduced policy for cautions, administrative penalties and prosecutions.

1.35 There has been little progress in target setting for benefits work. The number of targets set is extremely limited. The setting of meaningful targets would enable the exchequer and benefits section to demonstrate continuous improvement. Introducing targets for benefits work will mean that significantly more resources will have to be committed to management checking, to monitor and report performance against the targets.

1.36 When we looked at the procedures in place to safeguard the system from start to finish we found that they were generally comprehensive across the benefits and fraud operation.

1.37 We are concerned that Torbay may not be able to achieve its targets for best value. The backlog is currently making it difficult for management to effectively control the workload. Priorities are not always accurately identified and actioned.

1.38 We are pleased to note the levels of commitment from IA and conclude that it is providing Torbay with assurance that the systems and procedures are operating as intended. This is supported by district audit (DA), which has recently noted a significant improvement in the work of IA.

1.39 On behalf of the inspection team, I thank the senior officers and staff of Torbay Council for their close co-operation and support during the course of this inspection.

John Coxon
Programme Manager