Agenda item

To receive a report providing a summary of the activity undertaken by the Council’s Corporate Fraud Team in 2025/26.

The Committee received a report (a copy of which is appended to the Minute Book) providing a summary of the activity undertaken by the Council’s Corporate Fraud Team in 2025/26.

The Executive Councillor for Resident Services and Corporate Performance and the Corporate Fraud Manager introduced the report.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Corporate Fraud Manager explained that the Cambridgeshire Fraud Initiative focused primarily on the identification of Council Tax Single Person Discount fraud through data matching exercises undertaken jointly with other Cambridgeshire authorities. The most recent exercise had generated approximately 25,000 potential matches, although the majority were assessed as presenting no risk. Following detailed review, a number of frauds and errors had been identified and work remained ongoing. Cases classified as fraud were only recorded as such where sufficient evidence existed to demonstrate wrongdoing, generally following correspondence, interviews or other investigative enquiries. Errors were recorded separately where incorrect claims or payments arose through mistake rather than deliberate action. Procurement fraud represented a significant area of concern across both the public and private sectors, and references to these risks were contained within the Council's Counter Fraud Strategy. Whilst no such cases had been referred to the Corporate Fraud Team during the reporting period, preventative controls existed through procurement processes, contract management arrangements and fraud awareness activity undertaken across the organisation.

Regarding the identified losses which were ultimately recovered, the Committee were advised that the reported £586,000 represented a combination of recovered funds, prevented losses and financial outcomes arising from investigative work. Where fraud resulted in monies becoming repayable to the Council, recovery action was pursued through the relevant service area using established debt recovery arrangements. In relation to Council Tax fraud, amended liabilities were incorporated within revised Council Tax bills and subsequently managed through normal collection processes. It was not currently possible to isolate fraud-related debts from wider Council Tax collection data without undertaking significant manual analysis.

In response to questions concerning prosecution decisions, the Corporate Fraud Manager explained that all cases were assessed against the Council's own prosecution policy, which incorporated evidential and public interest considerations. Prosecution was not appropriate in every proven fraud case and factors such as financial impact, seriousness, deterrent value and proportionality were taken into account. It was further noted that prosecution costs could be significant and substantial delays continued to exist within the court system. Three cases were currently progressing through the courts and in at least one case, prosecution had been pursued despite there being no actual financial loss to the Council because of the seriousness of the conduct involved and the wider deterrent effect. There was currently no nationally recognised benchmarking framework for local authority fraud outcomes. While comparative information was available through professional networks and national counter-fraud bodies, meaningful comparisons were difficult due to significant variations in housing stock, demographics, service provision and levels of investment in fraud investigation teams between authorities. However, the value of benchmarking was noted, and work was underway nationally to improve consistency in reporting.

The broader social benefits generated through fraud investigation work, particularly in relation to tenancy fraud, were noted. Successful tenancy fraud investigations not only protected public resources but enabled properties to be returned to legitimate housing provision, helping to reduce pressure on waiting lists and temporary accommodation.

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the Committee commented on the content of the report.