Agenda item

INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRESS REPORT

Minutes:

Report CEO 15011

 

The audit of Family Placements was undertaken as part of the 2014/15 audit plan, at the request of the Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Social Care. This had resulted in 8 P1 recommendations and a nil assurance. The Head of Internal Audit explained that progress was being made, although it was a bit slow. There were still problems with training that required resolution; only 1 out of 9 staff identified to undertake training concerning financial regulations and contract procedure rules had completed and passed the training. There were still outstanding DBS checks that required chasing.  Of the 8 P1 recommendations tested to confirm implementation, 3 were still outstanding, and 5 were found to be partially implemented.

 

Good progress had been made concerning the Leaving Care (Payments to Clients) audit review. The findings of the review were that of the 6 partially implemented recommendations, 4 had been implemented, and the 2 relating to pathway plans and purchase cards remained as partially implemented.

 

The audit review of Looked after Children found that care plans and placement plans had been completed and authorised in a timely manner, and the recommendation is therefore considered implemented. The second P1 recommendation on recovery of an overpayment is currently being pursued to the satisfaction of Internal Audit and therefore is considered implemented.

 

The P1 recommendation pertaining to rent arrears for emergency accommodation was the longest outstanding. The process of the reconciliation of accounts with Orchard and Shipman was underway, and this may reduce the level of rent arrears. However, there was currently still a high level of uncollected rent, and so this recommendation remained outstanding. The Head of Internal Audit reminded the Committee of the recommendations concerning the Essential Care User scheme which was being phased out. Management were implementing the recommendations and therefore all three priority one recommendations have been implemented.

 

The audit review of Domiciliary Care revealed that there were still problems with agreements closed on incorrect dates, and agreements not being closed after a person was deceased. Therefore the two P1 recommendations remained open.

 

The audit follow up on the priority one recommendation made in the Transition Team audit, regarding under and overpayments in direct payment cases showed that this was still outstanding.

 

There had previously been an audit of a primary school that revealed problems with poor cash control. The school had since converted to an Academy, and the recommendations would be followed up by the responsible officer. The School Finance Team were now involved in improving financial controls.

 

The Head of Internal Audit reminded the Committee that from April 2002 to September 2015, LBB had worked successfully with RB Greenwich Fraud Team in successfully prosecuting Housing Benefit Fraud; during this period, 420 claimants had been successfully prosecuted. Since 1st July 2015 all new cases of suspected benefit fraud were now referred to the DWP’s Single Integrated Fraud Service. Internal Audit had received some feedback from SFIS, including the fact that 6 referrals had been lost. There were 29 cases under criminal investigation, but no successful prosecutions to date. The Head of Audit stated that this will be the last time for reporting on housing benefit statistics given the completed transfer of the service to the DWP.

 

The Head of Internal Audit briefed the Committee concerning section 3.44 of the report, which outlined the new anti-fraud and corruption strategy. Appendix F followed the report which outlined the new strategy. The Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy document required approval and subsequent uploading onto the system by Finance.

 

Cllr Ian Dunn referred the Committee to section 19 of the Raising Concerns Policy that dealt with Monitoring and Oversight. He commented that he had not seen this process in action. The Head of Internal Audit confirmed that the process was in place and was active.

 

Members noted the Bromley fraud activity statistics for 2014/15 that is now required in compliance with the Transparency Code to be published on the web.

 

Members turned their attention to the issue of objections to the accounts, and noted that there were three objections that were ongoing. At this point in the meeting the Chief Executive joined, and participated in the discussions concerning the objections. Cllr Fawthrop commented that it was good to receive objections, and that perhaps LBB needed to be more open concerning their accounts. The Chief Executive concurred with the need for transparency, but felt that as this matter had been ongoing for some time, it was necessary that the matter now be concluded. The person that had objected to the LBB accounts had undertook the same course of action with other boroughs.

 

Cllr Keith Onslow asked if the objections were valid, and if there was a formal process to draw the matter to a conclusion, he also wondered if the matter could be referred to the Ombudsman. Cllr Fawthrop suggested that the matter be referred to the local MP to be raised in the House of Commons. The Head of Internal Audit informed the Committee that LBB had met with the Objector, and had presented evidential information as required.  The Chief Executive stated that LBB should be more robust with the External Auditors. Cllr Fawthrop suggested that the Objector be asked if he would like to raise questions concerning the accounts in a public forum at the GP&L Committee.

 

It was agreed that there needed to be a breakdown/summary of work done by officers and information provided to date, with a timeline to evidence that LBB had complied with guidelines. Once done, Members would offer their support with regard to raising this matter with external audit.

 

It was agreed that there needed to be a summary of  information provided by LBB to the objector to date, in compliance with  guidelines. Once done, Members would offer their support with regard to raising this matter with external audit. The Head of Audit commented that the Director of Finance had raised this issue with other London treasurers and with Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd ( the body that had taken over from the Audit Commission to oversee the external audit contracts). There was no outcome – objections are seen as being an independent process between the objectors and the external auditors.

 

The Committee discussed the update on Risk Management and heard that a new risk matrix had been approved by the Corporate Risk Management Group, and was going to Directors for approval. The Committee were informed that LBB’s main corporate risks were being updated and does include fraud, budget savings and commission/contract monitoring. There was a debate on the number of high and significant risks and the criteria behind this. There were also queries on the new control matrix in terms of impact and likelihood. The Head of Audit pointed out that the submissions on risk classification had not been fully completed and details appearing in the report could change after management/DMT scrutiny of their risks. It was agreed that the complete details of high and significant risks be submitted to the next meeting of this Committee together with the revised corporate risks.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1) that the Internal Audit Progress report be noted

 

(2) that the list of Internal Audit reports published on the web be noted

 

(3) that the list of waivers sought since March 2015 be noted

 

(4) that the benefits of the counter fraud partnership (and impending changes) with RB Greenwich be noted

 

(5) that the revised Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy be approved

 

(6) that the new arrangements around risk management be noted

 

(7) that the Letter of Representation be noted

 

(8) that the new training arrangements around Audit Controls be noted 

 

(9) that concerning objections to the accounts--there needed to be a breakdown/summary of work done by officers and information provided to date, with a timeline to evidence that LBB had complied with guidelines. Once completed, Members would offer their support with regard to raising this matter with External Audit.

 

(10) that the details for high and significant risks be submitted to this Committee together with the revised Corporate Risks.

Supporting documents: