Issue - meetings

This report gives details of the Audit Commission’s Protecting the Public Purse 2014 and provides comparative information for this Council.

The Committee received a report of the Acting Head of Finance Shared Services which incorporated the Audit Commission’s ‘Protecting the Public Purse 2014’. 

Richard Lawson explained that the Fraud Briefing provided a comparison of Watford’s fraud detection work against a comparator group of councils.  The comparator group comprised councils that were seen to have similar characteristics to Watford.  The report demonstrated that Watford carried out active fraud detection work.

Following a question from the Chair about the comparator group, Richard Lawson advised that the group was selected by the Audit Commission.  The Director of Finance Shared Services added that the decision was based on the size and demographics of an area.

Councillor Khan asked whether the auditor was able to glean any information from the graphs included within the report.

Richard Lawson stated that the external auditor took the information at face value.  It was also important to consider how much a council invested in fraud detection.

The Director of Finance Shared Services commented that it was also necessary to consider how authorities might record fraud.  For example, some authorities might record people who have incorrectly claimed a single person discount.  At Watford this example was not included as fraud.  It was felt more important to ensure the person was paying the right amount of Council Tax.  The fraud information was not necessarily consistent between all authorities. 

Councillor Taylor asked how much budget the Council put towards fraud detection and the amount it recovered. 

The Director of Finance Shared Services informed the Committee that it was possible to state, from the Council’s budget, how much it cost the Council, as there was a dedicated Fraud Team.  It was more difficult to comment on how much had been recovered, as there was not always a financial element to fraud.  For example, if housing tenancy fraud were resolved, then there would be a benefit to the relevant registered social landlord.

Following a request for further information about the internal fraud which had been detected, the Director of Finance Shared Services advised that she would provide Members with the information it was possible to divulge.  It would not be possible to give full details about the case.

RESOLVED –

that the contents of the Fraud Briefing be noted.