Issue - meetings

FSD 19024

The Internal Audit Progress Report was written by the Head of Internal Audit and informed Members of recent audit activity that had taken place across the Council; it also provided an update on matters that had arisen from the previous meeting. Members were asked to note and comment on the report and also to approve the updated Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy and associated documents.

The Head of Audit briefed Members that a ‘Risk Register Refresh’ had taken place between December 2018 and January 2019, but none of the risk registers required any major changes. A revised suite of risk registers would be presented to the Committee at the June meeting, along with the Annual Governance Statement. The External Auditors had identified Brexit as an additional risk.

A GDPR ‘health check’ took place in November 2018 and was scoped in conjunction with Zurich. The outcome of the health check was largely positive. Members heard that the planned audit of Business Continuity would be deferred as the two officers previously dealing with the service had left the Council.

The Head of Audit was pleased with the findings of the audit that had been undertaken regarding the Housing Register, and so the assurance provided was ‘Substantial’.

The Chairman looked at the audit findings relating to the Management of Strategic Property, and the Director of Regeneration was present to answer  questions on the audit. The Chairman was disappointed to note that the assurance level for the ‘Management of Strategic Property’ was ‘Limited’. 

It was clarified that with respect to the management of Strategic Property. The main contractor was Amey, and the sub-contractor was Cushman & Wakefield. There were various issues that were identified by Internal Audit. There were instances identified when invoices were paid to the sub-contractor where the appropriate supporting documentation did not seem to support payment in full. 

Another issue that had been identified in the audit was that work had been undertaken by the sub-contractor which was outside the scope of the original contract. It had not been able to be determined if the TFM agreed schedule of rates had been applied to this work and so it could not be determined if the Council had obtained value for money in these cases.

Additionally, the Head of Audit stated that the KPIs on the contract were not working because they were deemed not workable. It was also the case that there were no instances of default penalties being applied.

When the contract commenced in October 2016, it had been agreed that the Strategic Property Sub-Contractor would develop a £1m Income Generation Plan. Internal Audit expressed limited confidence in the plan being developed on time and achieving the planned savings.

The Director of Regeneration commented that the report was fine and fair, and was accurate at a point in time. He said that in some areas (like disposing of the Old Town Hall), Cushman and Wakefield were very effective. However, there were other areas where he felt that they lacked understanding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34