Agenda item

Anti Fraud Team Report 2013/14

Minutes:

The Anti-Fraud Manager presented a report which set out the achievements of a successful year for the Anti-Fraud Team during 2013/14 and outlined it’s priorities during 2014/15 taking account of the significant impact of the creation of the Single Fraud Investigation Service (S-FIS) which was due to impact on fraud investigation services provided by the Council.  Transfer of staff for local authorities was to start in a phased approach between October 2014 and March 2016.  The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) would start negotiations for transferring staff 6 months before the transfer date that had been given for this Council as 1 February 2016.  The S-FIS would only investigate benefit fraud.  A decision would need to be taken as to whether the Council wanted to keep any staff in order to continue investigating suspected fraud within Council Tax Support claims and the fraud work currently being conducted within Council Tax (discounts and exemptions) as these two areas would remain the responsibility of the local authority. 

 

In response to questions he advised that if staff transferred it would involve relocating and they would become civil servants employed by the DWP, it would not be under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) but a similar kind of scheme.  The Chief Finance Officer reported that all staff were being scoped for transfer, however he hoped that it would be possible to keep some staff.  The joint working arrangements had been acknowledged and therefore staff at Dartford Borough Council were on the same timescales.  It was hoped that as the major beneficiary of the Council Tax discount fraud investigations, Kent County Council (KCC) could be encouraged to contribute to the cost of the remaining service.

 

A Member asked how many years into the past could be investigated and whether the Data Protection Act inhibited investigations.  The Anti-Fraud Manager advised that as it was a criminal offence being investigated, under ‘exemptions’ there were legal gateways to obtaining the information.  The evidence existed, but the main issue was that banks were only required to keep the information for 6-7 years.  There were some time bars on benefit fraud legislation, but often it was possible to obtain a small extension of three months to enable older cases to be taken to court.  In response to further questions he advised that it was not possible to enforce debtors to repay lump sum payments, but in most cases claimants found with large amounts of money in an account would pay up. 

 

The section worked closely with investigative colleagues in the DWP, any fraud conviction would not affect credit rating but they would have a criminal record if a prosecution was successfully brought against them.  More often formal cautions and administrative penalties were used.  The Committee was advised that the Chief Housing Officer was also a Magistrate and she gave the committee some further information on the sort of cases that were heard and how they were dealt with.  Formal prosecution tended to be used on repeat offenders. 

 

The Deputy Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources addressed the Committee advising that the Council needed to plan now for the potential loss of staff and a good starting point would be to have an Anti Fraud Policy on Council Tax (discounts & exemptions).  Investigations could be made into keeping a small team and selling the investigative services to other authorities.  The Anti Fraud Manger suggested there should be an over-riding Anti-Fraud policy for all Council Tax matters (i.e. Council Tax Support, discounts and exemptions).

 

The Anti Fraud Manger in response to a question as to whether the Individual Electoral Registration (IER) would help, responded that the Audit Commission already used the electoral roll as a good starting point for highlighting fraud, but the main source of information came from individual credit information and the investigating officer’s local knowledge.

 

Resolved:  That the content of the report and the work of the Anti-Fraud Team carried out in 2013/14 and that proposed for 2014/15, be noted. 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Back to top