Agenda item

To consider a report on the Workplan for the Corporate Fraud Team following the transfer of Housing Benefit fraud investigations to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Council’s revised Fraud Prosecution Policy.

The Panel received a report from the Benefits Manager (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) regarding the Workplan for the Corporate Fraud Team following the transfer of Housing Benefit fraud investigations to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

In May 2015 the responsibility for investigating allegations of Housing Benefit fraud transferred to the DWP.  Three Investigating Officers transferred to the DWP and the in-house team now consisted of a Team Leader, one Investigating Officer and an Intelligence Officer. 

It was explained to the Panel that the Workplan had been developed around the types of fraud that currently formed the majority of the work for the Team, as well as new and emerging threats, including Council Tax Support fraud; Council Tax discount fraud; Housing Tenancy fraud and Business Rates fraud.  The Corporate Fraud Team had been working with service areas across the Council and other partners to determine the level of fraud risk they encountered to establish how the Corporate Fraud Team could assist in reducing risk and investigating allegations of fraud.

In addition the Council had been the lead authority representing Cambridgeshire in securing funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government to establish a countywide initiative called the Cambridgeshire Anti-Fraud Network (CAFN).  The principle aim of CAFN had been the creation of a central data-sharing hub across Cambridgeshire to assist in the detection and investigation of tenancy fraud and other fraud identified/reported across the County.  Although CAFN was still in its infancy, it was noted that as a result of Cambridgeshire authorities working together over £1 million of fraud had been identified across the County.

With different types of fraud being investigated, required the Fraud Prosecution Policy to be amended to include reference to the legislation used in prosecuting these new areas.  The Panel endorsed the recommendations to the Cabinet on the Fraud Prosecution Policy that established the legislation and process that Investigating Officers must adhere to when considering the action to take following fraud investigation. 

The Panel had previously agreed that the subject of a new Fraud Working Group would not be considered until the Work Programme of the Corporate Fraud Team had been agreed.  The Corporate Fraud Team’s remit focused on Council services most at risk from fraud and loss and as the Team had been in its new format since May 2015, it was still establishing priorities for the future. The work of the Corporate Fraud Team was reported to the Corporate Governance Panel on an annual basis.  In addition, monitoring the delivery of the Workplan was to be overseen by the Executive Councillor for Customer Service.  The Panel concurred that this was sufficient and that the formation of the Fraud Working Group would not add further value at this time.

The Panel considered whether it wished to receive reports on a more frequent basis.  However, as the Annual Report on the Corporate Fraud Team was scheduled to be presented to the Panel in June 2016, the Panel were satisfied with this approach.

Having noted that a number of new and emerging frauds had been identified including Right To Buy (RTB) fraud, it was explained to the Panel that proposed changes to legislation could mean that Housing Associations would become increasingly at risk from RTB fraud.  In order to combat this, the Corporate Fraud Team were working with Housing Association partners to establish whether their procedures for processing RTB applications were robust and how the Corporate Fraud Team could assist to ensure that only genuine applications were accepted.

Allegations of fraud were encouraged to be reported to the Council via a number of methods including a 24-hour telephone line (automated voicemail system) that was checked daily; email; on-line referral forms; and at any of the Council’s offices or in writing.

Prosecutions were regularly publicised in the local press as both a deterrent to prospective fraudsters and as a way of encouraging further referrals.

It was explained to the Panel that fraud was identified via data matching using various databases such as Council Tax, Electoral Roll and that information was shared via CAFN and other partners such as the Police.

The Panel acknowledged that despite changes within the Team, that performance during 2015/16 had demonstrated that it continued to be a valuable asset to the Council in combating fraud.  The Panel enquired whether the reduced size of the Corporate Fraud Team could leave the Council at risk and how it compared to other authorities. In response the Panel was informed that the size of the Fraud Team varied amongst authorities, particularly as Government funding had ceased.  Having a Corporate Fraud Team was a deterrent and also generated income via prosecutions.  It was considered that the size of the Corporate Fraud Team was currently sufficient to address its Workplan and that data matching allowed for joint working and information from a variety of sources to be compared.  As a consequence surveillance was not required as a tool for identifying fraud. 

Having fully considered the report, the Panel

RECOMMENDED

that the Cabinet:

  i.  approve the Corporate Fraud Team Workplan 2015/17, attached as Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report;

  ii.  approve the revised Fraud Prosecution Policy, attached as Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report; and

  iii.  endorse the recommendation that monitoring of the delivery of the Workplan be overseen by the Executive Councillor for Customer Services alongside annual reports to the Corporate Governance Panel.