Issue - meetings

The Section 151 Officer presented the report which detailed the outcome of the Housing Benefit Subsidy Audit 2019/20.

Members were advised the audit had been carried out in accordance with the Department of Works and Pensions reporting requirements.

The audit identified two errors which were detailed in section1.4 of the report and which were drawn to Members’ attention. This had resulted in additional testing of 40 further cases being required and subsequently an additional fee of £1,920 for undertaking the work, bringing the overall total cost of the Audit to £7,819.

Context was offered in that the Authority had dealt with over 39,000 new changes in 2018/2019.  As customers transferred to Universal Credit the Authority were often left with more complex cases.  The errors identified had represented 0.0001% of changes the authority had managed in total, and whilst the aim was always 100% accuracy the subsidy rules did allow a Local Authority Error value of 0.54% of expenditure, a threshold which the Authority sat well within.

The Assistant Director of Change Management and Regulatory Services, as the responsible service director, was introduced and welcomed to the meeting.

Debate ensued and Members questioned whether the additional audit fee was value for money given the number and value of the error founds. 

Members were advised that the original audit was conducted in line with the requirements of the DWP, it was their guidance which stipulated what action the Authority must undertake if any errors were found as part of that initial audit.  As such, it was not a cost the Authority could avoid, it was a requirement upon then.  The risk of additional audit work was always something considered in budget setting, and as such contingency budgets were in place.  Whilst the fee was in excess of the original amount anticipated, the contingency budget had ensured the Authority had not in effect overspent for this work.

The Government in effect required assurance that the monies being re-claimed from them for Housing Benefits payments made by the Authority had been calculated appropriately.  As such they set the parameters.  Had the additional work identified further significant errors, the audit would have been “value for money”, however the audit did not and that was to be welcomed, with the value being in the assurance.

Having had the expectable error rate clarified and given that the Authority had been well within this, and yet still had been required to undertake a significant amount of additional work, at additional cost, a Member questioned whether this was a proportionate requirement of the Government and questioned whether representations should be made

Other Members considered the value came from the assurance the audit provided that small errors were not indicative of something on a much larger scale.  This additional work had given this assurance that systems and process were on the whole robust and this was to be welcomed.

The Chairman sought assurance from the responsible service director, given that errors had been identified in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5