It is thought to be the biggest case ever in Sandwell, in terms of the amount claimed illegally.

Zahida Parveen and Jhavid Iqbal, both of Victoria Park Road, pleaded guilty to 54 charges relating to benefit fraud and money laundering. At Wolverhampton Crown Court on Friday (August 5), Parveen was jailed for two years and Iqbal for two and a half years. The overpayments totalled £127,469.25, made up of £50,902.37 in housing benefit, £3,976.04 in council tax benefit and £72,590.84 in income support.

The court heard that Zahida, aged 43, had claimed to be a single parent with children and said 40-year-old Javid was her landlord. Sandwell Council officers investigated and found they were actually married. The couple had fiddled forms and letters to suggest they weren’t married, so that benefits would be paid.

Councillor Steve Eling, Sandwell Council’s deputy leader and cabinet member for strategic resources, said: “This case is probably the biggest case we’ve ever had here in Sandwell in terms of the amount swindled. It sends out a strong message that we will take tough action against anyone who cheats the system. The judge praised the detailed and comprehensive investigation that had been carried out by Sandwell Council. The judge also described the fraud as a professionally planned deception, organised cynically through pure greed.”

Councillor Eling said the council would try to recover the overpayments and costs through the courts from the couple’s assets using confiscation legislation.

Costs are still to be set but the council will seek to recover all costs.

According to the National Fraud Authority Annual Fraud Indicator, Local government could be saving taxpayers £2.1 billion a year by cracking down on fraud in housing tenancy; procurement; pay, pensions and recruitment; council tax; grant; and blue badge schemes. Money currently lost to fraud and error costs every household in England almost £100 a year.

The ten point checklist was compiled, at the request of Mr Pickles, by experts in the National Fraud Authority. The recommendations include councils using credit rating agencies to stop tax evasion and benefit fraud; staff background checks to prevent fraudsters and organised criminals infiltrating key posts.

The Government’s Counter Fraud Task Force was launched last year to develop a new strategic approach to tackling fraud across the public sector with a focus on prevention. It will report in May.

Many councils and housing associations are already tackling fraud and error in housing tenancy claims with the departments help. £19 million has been committed to 51 councils to help recover unlawfully occupied homes. Last year they recovered nearly 1,600 properties worth around £240 million.

Eric Pickles said:

“It’s time to get tough and take on the fraud cons. At a time when we need to cut the national deficit and government waste, cleaning up fraud could save the taxpayer over £2 billion in recovered cash currently being fraudulently stolen or lost to tax cheats.

“Better prevention, detection and recovery of fraud will help reduce the financial pressure on councils and help protect frontline services. Today I am publishing the top ten plays for cracking down on council finance fraud.

“Councils should carry out better credit checks through credit rating agencies before giving over discounts or benefits. They should properly vet staff in key positions and put stricter controls on who can use the council credit card.”

Mike Haley, Director of Public Sector Fraud, National Fraud Authority said:

“At a time when councils are attempting to protect front line services, fraud can no longer be tolerated. Substantial savings can be made, as demonstrated by the best local authorities, and reducing fraud can make a significant difference to local government finances. This ten-point plan, based on local authority best practice, is a starting point in helping councils get a grip on fraud.”

Top ten tips for tackling local authority fraud:

1. Measure exposure to fraud risk;
2. More aggressively pursue a preventative strategy;
3. Make better use of data analytics and credit reference agency checks to prevent fraud;
4. Adopt tried and tested methods for tackling fraud in risk areas - such as blue badge scheme misuse;
5. Follow best practice to drive down Housing Tenancy and Single Person Discount fraud;
6. Pay particular attention to high risk areas such as procurement and grant awards;
7. Work in partnership with service providers to tackle organised fraud across local services;
8. Maintain specialist fraud investigative teams;
9. Vet staff to a high standard to stop organised criminals infiltrating key departments;
10. Implement national counter fraud standards developed by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Estimates indicate that over 400,000 people could be wrongly claiming for single person discount at a cost of £100 million a year to councils in lost council tax. Birmingham City Council has identified £6.8 million worth of fraudulent and incorrect claims for single person council tax discounts.

Some councils are already seeing the benefits of using credit rating agencies. Cheshire East Council found nearly 2000 people had wrongly claimed using Experian credit data. It cost £80,000 but will recover half a million pounds in new income.

Kent County Council is pioneering a contract framework for credit rating agencies which all councils can buy into. This will keep costs down and tackle those that are wrongly claiming services. Mr Pickles believes other councils should take advantage of Kent’s example and sign up to it.

Local Government employs around 2 million permanent, temporary and agency staff. Ealing found that 6 per cent failed proper vetting checks but that the figure was higher for temporary staff at 13 per cent.

One council found an agency worker put in charge of a large budget had set up a fictitious company and made false claims totalling £110,000. The person had used a false CV and was later sentenced to two years in prison. The insurance company refused to pay compensation.

London councils have been targeted by a group of sophisticated and organised false identity fraudsters using fake passports to falsely claim £700,000 of services. Oxford Council hired a dedicated fraud officer last year and recovered 25 properties in the first six months. In 15 of these cases the unlawfully sub-letting tenant was still claiming housing benefit, the total cost of which was £1500 per week.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has committed £19 million to helping 51 councils tackle social housing fraud.

by Andy Fuller, Associate Director, Government Consulting, Fujitsu

The UK public sector has an opportunity to lead the way in tackling billions of pounds of fraud and error to offset the worst effects of budget cuts with proven, innovative approaches

“The potential savings are compelling – implemented in the right way, systems to cut fraud and error could save £10 billion across government within four years”

Estimates of public sector fraud vary between £15 and £25 billion, with fraud and error on welfare payments alone estimated to be costing the UK taxpayer upwards of £5 billion a year.  The government’s drive to complete the introduction of Universal Credit by 2017 will go a significant way to delivering a simpler, and more robust, benefits system. But in the meantime, how can councils drive through additional CSR savings and leverage the significant skills and knowledge of their in-house fraud teams?

National fraud teams

The government’s plans to build a national fraud investigation resource will have significant implications for the way in which local authorities are able to bring together different sources of data, combined with excellent local knowledge, to successfully tackle fraud and error through the effective screening of applicants’ information.

This newly formed national-level fraud authority must reach right across the public sector with a strong central hub and empowered regional teams, leveraging shared data, knowledge and  expertise. Automation, outsourcing, shared services and other efficiency approaches will all play their part, but two other areas are highlighted by politicians as untapped sources of cost-reduction – fraud and error.

The traditional approach

The traditional government approach to curbing fraud is to identify anomalies and suspicious patterns by linking together the enormous databases held by relevant departments. Not only is this a slow and expensive process, but many people are uncomfortable with the implications for civil liberties. Neither is increasing the complexity of the claims process for benefits and tax a workable solution. Making claimants jump through ever more complex hoops to receive their entitlements smacks to many of means testing and is likely to result in large numbers of genuine claimants being disenfranchised, as well as introducing more potential for error.

As a key supplier to government, Fujitsu is well aware of the sensitivities involved here; it is also an area where we have built considerable expertise. Our experience has convinced us that the sector can make substantial inroads into reducing fraud and error in a way that not only overcomes the difficulties outlined above, but does so quickly and at a manageable cost while actually improving the speed and efficiency of services for claimants.

Early warning system

That estimate is based on our experience of devising, implementing and managing just such a fraud and error reduction service: “Fraud Shield” for a large Government Department. Essentially, the system uses statistical models built on past claims history to identify the likelihood that any tax claim is erroneous or fraudulent before it is progressed. Previously, claimants who made genuine errors often found these were not discovered until after the claim was paid. This meant they suddenly faced an unexpected demand to pay back the money. That often proved far more problematic to deal with than if the claim been refused or reduced at the outset.

The system doesn’t make the decision as to whether a particular claim is good or bad. Rather, it examines around 150 data items on each form that are seen as predictive (for example someone’s name and address is not, but their postal area may be). By automatically comparing these items to anonymised data from past claims (good and bad), it’s possible to generate a score predicting the likelihood of any particular claim being erroneous or fraudulent. This has the twin advantages of allowing staff to prioritise the effort they put into validating particular claims, and speeding up the payment process for the majority of genuine claimants (since those flagged up as low risk can be pushed through far more quickly).

It’s possible to perform additional analysis that further improves the accuracy of the scoring. For instance, we store lists of people known to have exhibited suspicious behaviour in the past or accounts which have previously been hijacked. We also keep track of key information like phone and bank account numbers for a certain number of days after claims are filed, which helps spot fraudsters who might be using the common tactic of bombarding the systems with multiple claims. For example, they frequently acquire a set of fake IDs, but use the same phone number on every form. In addition, we check the unique ID number of claim forms to prevent people using forged forms unnoticed. And there is other publicly available data we can use as a cross-check to help further ascertain the likely accuracy of the information people give: for example, marketing data that people have already consented may be used by third parties.

Innovative and effective

We believe our approach is an innovative and effective way to reduce the amount of fraud and error that occurs in public sector benefits payments. Equally important, it can be implemented quickly and it offers an extremely fast payback. The process of bolting these checks on to an organisation’s existing data-entry processes can be both straightforward and rapid – in the Departments case it took just two weeks. And within another two weeks the scheme had uncovered enough fraud and error to pay for itself for a year. Of course, even as we are seeking to innovate, government is also looking to engage with suppliers under new contract models. We believe that in the current budgetary climate, any proposed system requiring a huge upfront outlay is a non-starter.

Rewards for results

Local government’s commitment to reducing fraud and error continues to lead the way for the public sector as a whole. The range of councils’ system improvements, shared services, information integration and risk-based verification of claims that are coming to fruition in 2011 shows that local authorities still have a key role to play in cutting inaccuracy and waste from the benefit system.

There is  a huge opportunity here to make radical reductions in fraud and error across the sector, and one that – in this climate of austerity – should not be not be missed. Clearly, current levels for illegitimate payments – at around 3% of total expenditure – are unacceptable. By combining resources at a national and local level, and working closely in partnership with private sector suppliers who have an intimate understanding not only of the necessary technology and processes but also of public sector IT strategy and operations, local government can remain firmly at the centre of tackling fraud and error.

Andy Fuller, Associate Director, Government Consulting, Fujitsu

http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/EU/uk/pdf/insights/fraud-error.pdf

http://www.fujitsu.com/uk/insight-opinion/insights/fraud-error.html

http://www.fujitsu.com/uk/

In association with the IRRV

Please find the revised draft agenda below for download:

LAIOG Conference May 2011 Agenda at 22nd March

We are waiting to confirm the Minister – Francis Maude and Ian Duncan Smith have been invited.

Lord Archy Kirkwood from the Work and Pension Select Committee has agreed to attend, along with  Sanjay Mackintosh of the National Fraud Authority presenting Working in Partnership to Tackle Fraud in the Public Sector.

Do not miss the opportunity to attend the round table consultation with the DWP on the Single Fraud Investigation Service.

The key fraud associations are participating, including the Audit Commission and, National Fraud Authority along with LAIOG and IRRV.

Speakers:

Kerry McDermott – IRRV President

Lord Kirkwood – Work and Pension Select Committee

David Barr – DWP

Paul Tapsell – Barrister

Alan Bryce & Duncan Warmington – Audit Commission

Rachel Tiffen – National Fraud Authority

David Magor OBE – IRRV CEO

Sessions:

AGM – LAIOG members

LAIOG Launch – Professional Standards for Investigators Training Scheme

Training Sessions

DWP Round Table Interactive Session

ITS Prize Quiz in the Exhibition Suite

Event dinner

Delegate fees for 2011 are:

Both days:

£149 + VAT for LAIOG + IRRV Members

£179 + VAT for Non Members

Day 1 or Day 2:

£79 + VAT for LAIOG + IRRV Members

£99 + VAT for Non Members

LAIOG AGM

This is being held at the beginning of the first day (17th May) and is free for LAIOG members.

Delegates can book for the event by email, post, or phone:

Download booking form (excel): LAIOG 2011 Delegate Booking Form

Download PDF booking form: LAIOG 2011 Delegate Booking Form

Contact us by email at laiog@opportunities.co.uk

Book by phone on 01491 413 858

Please click here to pay by credit card

The InCase brand has become synonymous with quality, reliability and continued development towards a common goal for all our customers.  INTEC customers have won the coveted IRRV excellence in Anti-Fraud Award almost every year since its inception in 2002, including this year’s winner in the London Borough of Sutton).

There are many organisations putting forward a united front against some of the changes being suggested with the new SFIS, particularly IRRV and LAIOG. Both these organisations feel very strongly that the way in which many things can be done, should be done, by local authorities. We fully agree and believe that the statistics that have been demonstrated put a very strong argument forward.

Seeing the use of these statistics and this type of information in particular, got us thinking. As a result of this INTEC has come up with the’ IBMS’ product, which you will see is not only available to all of our customers but to any fraud team in the country offering a detailed benchmarking system without the fuss of central government controls .

Joined up working

In times of austerity, the more sharing of data and workload that is possible can mean greater efficiencies and results. Through the use of INTEC systems, maximisation of time, effort and effective data matching give you superb sustainable results.

Fraud benchmarking @ www.intecpublicsector.com/public-sector-software/ibms

For many years benefit fraud teams have produced numerous reports and statistics for their member authorities and DWP. There has never been a central repository of data or the tools to break down all the information that is provided.

INTEC has produced a web based system for the collection and analysis of data. Tools are available to not only analyse the information provided, but to also collect the required detail that is needed to standardise the output.

Data mapping

A major hurdle in any benchmarking group is the standardisation of data types. Currently there are a number of systems available, similar to InCase, which allows the storage of numerous different data types. Each system may refer to a case status of ‘Closed Case Fraud Proven’ with potentially different codes; like ‘Fraud Proven’ or ‘FP’.

What IBMS will do is apply a common set of codes and convert the individual system’s values to the standardised, set so as to provide truly comparable benchmarked data. This information will then be shown visually through the secure website in the form of grids, graphs and charts. Details can then be exported to allow further comparison through localised spread sheets.

Matching

The INTEC benchmarking and searching system has two key user functions; to provide analytics and to allow searching across data nationally.

The summary analytics allow breakdown of key data by single/multiple authorities, by department and by varying case details. Analysis of case referrals, closures and on-going investigations can be viewed graphically by different criteria, such as:

• Case/Fraud Type
• Case Status
• Information/Referral Source
• Outcome

These breakdowns will give a full range of benchmarking statistics across your own authority and against other authority’s fraud data. Combine this with date filters and you can also compare current rates of investigations with previous years. Common details such as case references, closure dates and values give further enhanced results of fraud investigations.

Integration

Through the use of the InCase fraud system, InSearch Profiling and Analysis and InForm Online forms, direct integration is available to the IBMS database. New records are instantly verified against the IBMS data in order to indicate any potential fraud risk.

Direct interfaces are available to provide the same functionality to third party systems. Online access is provided to allow data upload and searching of suspected fraudsters’ basic information.

Cross departmental matching

Due to the way in which this system is designed there exists the capability to hold information from other sources, which may also be used in the detection of fraud activity within the authority. Through the exact same systems and methods, other data will be passed to IBMS in order for more comprehensive searching and matching.

The benefits of having other departments and authorities holding their data securely are that genuine fraudsters can be located who otherwise would go undetected.

Searching

Through a number of search functions, data can be located either automatically or via manual checks. The online system carries out comprehensive matching of real-time cases to identify where the same person exists on multiple investigations, either within departments at your own authority or across all authorities.

This, combined with the auto-checking of referrals within your own systems, ensures that you have a complete anti-fraud solution identifying any potential matches.

Security

All databases and systems are held at a secure off-site location with managed services ensuring maximum uptime of all data and web access. Details passed to the database are transmitted securely using the latest encryption and data handling techniques ensuring that no information can be intercepted and viewed. Website pages are loaded and information is passed behind a secure certificate, giving further peace of mind in data security.

Effective data handling

Information is used for benchmarking and/or data matching. Automation of the systems, mapping and secure transfer of data files, all mean that case details are shared and used effectively, without any data protection issues. INTEC have registered this system with the ICO for data certification of use.

IBMS allows automated matching of people across all available datasets. You have the capability to manage your own case load whilst having the ability to check all entries with known intelligence throughout the whole of the UK.

www.intecpublicsector.com

By Pekka Dare

The International Compliance Association (ICA) works worldwide with a diverse range of public and private sector organisations to promote best practice in combating financial crime. As a result, the ICA is uniquely placed in terms of identifying best practice from a range of jurisdictions, organisations and industry sectors.

The past decade has seen a rapid development in technology and delivery mechanisms within financial services sectors and other regulated firms. New payment methods involving electronic money, mobile money and stored value cards continue to raise challenging issues for financial crime prevention professionals.

The exponential growth of new payments technology has resulted in significant social economic benefits for the financially excluded and developing economies worldwide:

Four million people who receive Social Security benefits lack bank accounts. To reduce reliance on paper cheques, the United States began distributing these benefits using prepaid cards, which beneficiaries can use to purchase goods or get cash. Previously, beneficiaries cashed cheques at non-banks and conducted transactions using cash or money orders. *

However, along with these benefits, risk and issues related to fraud and financial crime have emerged.

The danger for the public sector is that new technologies and processes may be implemented without the attendant risks being fully evaluated and mitigated.

The Risk Based Approach to Financial Crime

A key aspect of managing the risks of emerging technology is the risk based approach. Private sector firms within the scope of the Money Laundering Regulations have for several years adopted the risk based approach to anti money laundering. However this approach has now spread to encompass all financial crime, including fraud.

But what does the risk based approach actually mean? Far from being an excuse to implement cursory controls, the risk based approach demands a rigorous and ongoing cycle of risk assessment, implementation of proportionate controls, and monitoring.

The result of this monitoring (which should be undertaken truly independently from the unit or department undertaking the work) will then feed back into a new risk assessment and the process will begin again. This model has been described as a “virtuous circle”.

The key to controlling the risk of fraud in any organisation is identifying the vulnerability of processes, roles, products and services to fraud. Most financial firms do this in a very structured manner allocating weighted scoring criteria based on defined criteria.

The next step is to develop controls that are proportionate to these identified risks.

The objective of the risk based approach in respect of fraud is to permit the implementation of cost-effective fraud prevention. A risk assessment provides a structured approach by which to identify, document and evaluate:

• The threats facing the sector in which the organisation operates.
• The threats from products and services provided in this organisation.
• Any existing fraud management policies and procedures, and the potential impact of enhancement.
• The acceptable level of residual risk within the organisation.
• The level of risk appetite of the organisation.

A Hub & Spoke Approach

In private sector firms, particularly the larger banks, a ‘hub and spoke’ approach has been taken to ensure that responsibilities of central fraud departments are aligned with those of fraud teams within the business units.

Given the diversity of the product base, and therefore the potential fraud risks faced by major firms, the knowledge and skills within the customer-facing and operational parts of the business were a vital resource for identifying and mitigating fraud risk and reacting quickly and effectively to fraud threats. This model is typically part of a ‘hub and spoke’ approach whereby support was provided to the ‘front line’ by a central team whose primary responsibilities were developing and enforcing policies standards, monitoring, reporting and highlighting threats and sharing best practice.

It is important that anti-fraud responsibilities are embedded within operational units of an organisation so that they become part of day to day management. This is particularly so in relation to new product development or where changes are made to existing products, services or delivery channels.

Plausibility Testing

Increasingly financial services firms have found that no matter how good a process is, or how well a form is designed, people can still complete a process badly. When opening an account, a bank clerk may complete all the details required on the application form, but may do so on a very superficial level, or perhaps more importantly, not stop, and ask common sense questions challenging the veracity of the information they have been provided with by the customer.

Many banks are now attempting to ensure staff have the ability and the skill to challenge and probe further when presented with information which is, on the face of it, incomplete or implausible. This approach has come to be known as “plausibility testing”.

This process involves providing sanitised case studies of real cases which have been identified, where staff should have challenged the veracity of the information they were provided with.

Staff Training and Awareness

Many financial services firms are developing tailored fraud training for staff based upon the roles they undertake. This is an extension of the risk based approach, with customer facing staff being given more detailed training on identifying fraudsters (e.g. providing awareness of social engineering techniques used by fraudsters on call centre staff).  Tailored training will also be developed for specialists, i.e. auditors, underwriters, fraud officers and senior management) the material and content can be made relevant to the roles and use sanitised case studies. It is far more effective to play a phone recording of an identity fraudster in action to a room or walk through a fraudulent application in a workshop than to produce a computer based training (CBT) package with sets out the legal and regulatory obligations for staff in a more staid and less interactive manner.

It is evident that most firms in the private sector are moving away from solely relying on CBT to raise awareness of fraud. Many firms are moving to a mixed approach, covering face to face training, CBT and other awareness raising initiatives such a desk drops, ad hoc communications and newsletters.

Pekka Dare is the Global Head of Anti Money Laundering and Financial Crime Prevention at the International Compliance Association. The International Compliance Association is a professional organisation dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in compliance, anti-money laundering and financial crime prevention. ICA offers internationally recognised innovative professional qualifications that help improve knowledge, enhance skills and minimise risk. For novice and experienced practitioners alike, ICA certificate and diploma programmes are a benchmark of competence and excellence. For more information on qualifications and training visit www.int-comp.org

AMA Associates

AMA is an approved supplier of fraud and security training to both the public and private sector. Our Accredited Counter Fraud Specialist foundation level modular programme is accredited by the University of Portsmouth.

We are an accredited training provider for Fraud and Security under the OGC buying solutions framework agreement for Learning and Development. This framework is available for use by the public sector and by using this EU compliant framework agreement customers have easy access to all our services without the need for further costly procurement exercises.

Our modular training includes the whole range of products needed to equip an investigative counter fraud specialist with the requisite skills and knowledge. Our programme includes: Legislation, Exhibits, Witness Statements, Court Procedures, Intelligence Gathering, Investigative Interviewing, Internal Fraud & Corruption, Computer Fraud and Fraud Strategy.

We provide a full range of security training including Covert Surveillance, Technical Surveillance Equipment & Investigation, Photographic & Video Evidence and Log Keeping and all our trainers are experts in their field.

AMA provides an “end-to-end” service from Training Needs Analysis to the support of an In House Legal Team. Our customers are important to us and we work closely with them to ensure that our training solution meets their need.

www.ama-assoc.co.uk

CIFAS

CIFAS is a not-for-profit membership association representing the private and public sectors.  CIFAS is dedicated to the prevention of fraud, including staff fraud, and the identification of financial crime.

CIFAS has over 250 Members spread across banking, credit cards, asset finance, retail credit, mail order, insurance, savings, telecommunications, factoring, share dealing and the public sector.  Although at present CIFAS Members are predominantly private sector organisations, public sector bodies may also share fraud data reciprocally through CIFAS to prevent fraud.

Members share information about identified frauds in the fight to prevent further fraud.  CIFAS is unique and was the world’s first not-for-profit fraud prevention data sharing scheme.  Since CIFAS was founded, CIFAS Members have prevented fraud losses to their organisations worth billions of pounds by sharing fraud data.

www.cifas.org.uk

International Compliance Association

The International Compliance Association is a professional organisation dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in compliance, anti-money laundering and financial crime prevention. ICA offers internationally recognised professional qualifications that help improve knowledge, enhance skills and minimise risk for firms. For novice and experienced practitioners alike, ICA certificate and diploma programmes are a benchmark of competence and excellence.

0121 362 7747

www.int-comp.org

Foster and Freeman

Foster + Freeman are innovators in the design and manufacture of systems for the examination of questioned documents, latent fingerprints, trace evidence and shoe prints.

Established in 1978, Foster + Freeman has become one of the foremost forensic science equipment suppliers in the world, exporting market leading, and in many cases unique products to more than 140 countries.

Our products are designed to assist in finding evidence at scenes of crime and in performing detailed forensic investigations in the laboratory. Our customers include all major police and forensic science laboratories as well as government agencies, commercial and private organisations such as homeland security, immigration authorities, security printers, lottery companies, insurance companies, university departments and national libraries.With offices in the UK and the USA, and a global network of agents and distributors, Foster + Freeman are able to provide customers with a high level of technical support, installation and training.

01386 768 050

www.fosterfreeman.com

Intec Public Sector

Welcome to INTEC Public Sector. For many years INTEC has worked with local and national organisations to deliver both packaged and bespoke solutions. Our experience working with local authorities and national agencies has helped us build a comprehensive portfolio and a large UK-wide customer base, particularly within fraud, audit and health and safety.

The INTEC portfolio of products is always expanding with ongoing research and development into new areas. We can work with any business to improve its services, and develop the required solution to meet any specific needs. INTEC continues to improve and reinvent its systems to ensure that we provide customers with the best solution available.

Our key expertise is in providing niche solutions within local authorities. Our range of solutions include departmental case management and data analysis through to corporate systems and national web portals.

www.intecpublicsector.com

Magnet Solutions: LoCTA Search

LoCTA Search is an efficient, easy-to-use, web based tool which provides a national search of subscribing Authorities’ Revenues and Benefits databases.   It is a real-time, integrated solution which increases efficiency, performance and cash flow in a wide variety of areas of tracing and recovery.

Working in partnership with Local Authorities and using innovative data exchange technology, LoCTA Search has developed its powerful search capabilities to provide cost –effective, up to date information on both individuals and businesses.

To make LoCTA Search the tracing tool MAG:NET Solutions has incorporated external data sources such as the BT OSIS Directory, a national PAF Search (Post Code Address File), unique access to DWP’s Debt Recovery database and Credit Reports from Equifax.

LoCTA Search is operational over the Government Connect Network (GCSX) ensuring that access is only made available to subscribing Local Authorities – securely. MAG:NET Solutions offers all Authorities a flexible pricing plan based on an annual license, unlimited users, unlimited searches and free unlimited support.

LoCTA Search now delivers a wealth of information in one easy to use system.

0161 925 1500

www.magnetsolutions.co.uk

Fujitsu

Fujitsu, has developed and proven an innovative, rapidly deployable and low risk solution to help organisations tackle fraud and error before it enters the system.  Working with Experian and other market leading partners Fujitsu has developed this approach which is proven to deliver a step change improvement in fraud and error detection and prevention. This approach has been proven to deliver dramatic results in a very short period of time and could be applied more widely across government. For further information visit the Fujitsu stand or listen to Andy Fuller (Fraud and Error Lead) who will be speaking on 18th May.”

www.uk.fujitsu.com

NEAL

NEAL is the leading provider of high integrity, custom-designed interview recording equipment. For over a decade we have provided the best indisputable audio and video recording systems to professionals in the Police Force, Enforcement Organisations, Emergency Services, Security, Human Resource and Government bodies.

Our products, whether used for investigation, disciplinary, interview or public safety purposes, provide a complete and evidential account of what has been said. “NO DISPUTE”

0191 418 1199

www.neal.co.uk

TraceIQ

Background checks – providing you with vital information

TraceIQ helps you gain a clearer picture of people and their circumstances. Our industry leading data provides a wealth of information, so you can carry out investigations, conduct background checks and find people.

raceIQ helps you make informed decisions faster. So whether you work in financial services, the public sector, or independently, TraceIQ’s datasets will help you conduct background checks to investigate claims and prevent any fraudulent activities.

www.traceiq.co.uk

Alarm

Alarm aims to make a positive contribution to loss reduction in the Public Sector.  By working in collaboration, Alarm brings together a variety of experiences.  We wish to share this pool of knowledge amongst all Public Services to avoid duplication of effort and further waste of precious resources.  We also aim to provide, over a period of time, some guidance in terms of best practice for both new and more experienced Risk Managers.  At the same time we aim to influence the national agencies which are directly involved with the provision of Public Services.  We are committed to the partnership approach as this, in our view, is the most effective way to stem the ever-rising impact on our budgets of growing losses and an increasing claims experience.

www.alarm-uk.org

Policy

1. What exactly is the Coalition Government policy on assistance with housing costs?
2. Was it always Conservative policy to abolish housing benefit?
3. Has a comprehensive decision been made on the respective roles of the local authority and the DWP/HMRC in relation to housing costs?
4. Will any role be mandatory?
5. Will there be a full equality impact assessment on the inclusion of housing costs in the Universal Credit?
6. Has a Risk Assessment been undertaken on the introduction of Universal Credit?
7. Is there any flexibility in the policy approach?
8. How do the proposed administrative arrangements meet the localism policy?
9. What is the policy on Universal Credit in Northern Ireland?
10. Has an impact analysis been undertaken on the extent to which the Universal Credit will damage rented private sector provision?
11. Was the inclusion of housing costs in the Universal Credit driven by the rising cost of housing benefit rather than efficiency and simplicity?
12. Why couldn’t the rising cost of housing benefit be remedied by the control of rents in the private sector?
13. Was a detailed study undertaken of the relative performance of LA fraud teams, DWP teams and the HMRC before the decision was made to create one service?
14. Were Ministers made aware of the poor performance of DWP overpayment recovery in comparison to LA performance?
15. Were Ministers made aware of the poor performance of HMRC overpayment recovery in comparison to LA performance?
16. Is a Public Relations strategy in place for the Universal Credit?
17. If the answer is yes, can it be made public?

Legislation

18. Will the existing legislation on housing benefit and council tax benefit be repealed or will it be saved?
19. If the answer is repealed, would it not be sensible to save the provisions as a contingency measure?
20. What is the Parliamentary timetable in the Commons and the Lords?
21. The Bill seems to be deficient in certain areas, so are the Government prepared to insert new clauses including more enabling powers?
22. Why are there no enabling powers to allow subsidies to be paid to local authorities?
23. When will the draft regulations be available?
24. Will the Data Protection Act be amended to facilitate effective data sharing?
25. When will the Social Security Advisory Committee be consulted on the Universal Credit proposals?
Delivery

26. Can the overall Business Case for the delivery model be made publicly available?
27. Can the full Project Plan for Universal Credit be made publicly available?
28. What channels are going to be used to deliver the front line service?
29. Has an impact analysis of the delivery model been undertaken?
30. Will LA tenants accounts be credited with the housing benefit element of Universal Credit?
31. What will be the role of local authorities in the delivery of Universal Credit?
32. How will the new council tax benefit/relief/rebate be paid, as a credit to council tax accounts or as a cash payment?
33. What will be the data protocols between the DWP and LAs?
34. Will there be an independent performance monitoring system for the Universal Credit?
35. What will be the role of the Third Sector in the delivery of Universal Credit?
36. Who will deal with customer facing services for older people?
37. Where will the public customer access points be for “e” channels?
38. How will the DWP deal with the 9.2m people who have never accessed the internet?
39. Who will validate private sector tenancy information?
40. What will be the payment vehicle for Universal Credit?
41. If the answer is “electronically” by BACS, how is the Government going to facilitate the opening of bank accounts for claimants and potential claimants?
42. Will local authorities still be on the Government secure network after full implementation of Universal Credit?
43. If LA‟s are not going to be allowed to assess entitlement will they be able to act as contractors for the service?
44. Will the Third Sector be able to act as contractors for the service?
45. How will accountability for performance be measured and monitored?
46. Is there a Programme Board for the project?
47. If there is a Programme Board, does it have any independent members?
48. How does the “Tell Us Once” project fit into the delivery model for Universal Credit?

Operational

49. What is the assessment unit for the Universal Credit?
50. How will non dependants be treated in the Universal Credit?
51. How will sub-tenants and lodgers be treated for Universal Credit?
52. What will happen to tenancies currently excluded from LHA?
53. What will happen to the supporting people fund, what, if any, mechanisms will prevent previously ineligible service charges seeping back into the housing element within Universal Credit?
54. How assured will DWP be that tenants are resident or liable to pay rent?
55. Many tenants do not have a written tenancy drawn up by an independent letting agent. It is easy to buy a standard agreement form in any stationers or over the internet. LA‟s have invested considerable resources in carrying out residency checks to ensure HB goes to legitimate tenants, will DWP adopt a similar strategy?
56. What powers will local authorities be given to recover residual overpayments after 2017?
57. Will the proposed power to „fast track‟ attachments to earnings be given to local authorities?
58. Lord Freud mentioned in his video at the recent IRRV Benefit Conference the administration of the Social Fund. What role will local authorities play in this?
59. What measures will the government put in place to ensure claimants do not end up in substandard accommodation just because it is cheap and all they can afford?
60. Should the benefit entitlement be linked to good quality housing and accommodation that meets minimum standards of health and safety?
61. Will private tenants in cheap accommodation be protected by a “HIP style” pack on insulation and heating to ensure they are spending every penny they have on metered heating?
62. What will happen to those claimants who currently do not receive any other benefit apart from HB/CTB?
63. How will a large single payment of Universal Credit help the most vulnerable with budgeting? Currently HB is paid either direct to the landlord or the claimant. When paid to the claimant it is easily identifiable and separate from the other payments and so helps budgeting for those who find figures or money difficult to deal with?
64. What operational contingency plans do the DWP and HMRC have in place?
65. What investment in the private sector will the government be making to create job opportunities in each locality?
66. How will the “Welfare to Work” programme link into Universal Credit?
67. What investment in Universal Credit training will the government be making?

• For its own staff?
• For local authorities?
• For the Third Sector?
• For Adult Services?
• For Social Services?
• For other support services?

Finance

68. Why are there no saving powers in the Bill concerning finance?
69. When will we begin to see housing benefit subsidy being withdrawn?
70. When will we begin to see council tax benefit subsidy being withdrawn?
71. Will the DWP or the Treasury meet any consequential costs as a result of the change in legislation?
72. Why are there no enabling powers in the Bill to meet the costs of local authorities if they have a role in the new procedures?
73. Will any re-imbursement be 100% of LA costs incurred during the transition?
74. What are the funding arrangements for the introduction of the new fraud service?
75. Can the funding plans for Universal Credit delivery be made available?
76. Will the DWP finance redundancy and redeployment costs of staff affected by the transfer of powers?
77. Will the DWP finance any consequential staffing costs?
78. Will the DWP compensate local authorities for any contractual severance costs?
79. What will the pension arrangements be for transferred staff?
80. Will the DWP finance the pension costs for LA staff that opt for early retirement?
81. Will the DWP finance the set up costs for the new LA Fraud teams?
82. What are the subsidy arrangements for the new council tax benefit/relief/rebate?
83. Which Government department will fund the new council tax benefit/relief/rebate?

Information Technology

84. How long does the DWP expect local authorities to support legacy systems?
85. Why weren‟t LA software suppliers given the opportunity to tender for Universal Credit systems or the active PAYE system?
86. How were European procurement rules satisfied?
87. What are the contingency arrangements for delays or failure in the delivery of Universal Credit software?
88. What historic information will be needed for the transitional scheme?
89. Will LAs be reimbursed the cost of holding this information?
90. Will there be an interface with LA housing and council tax systems?
91. Will there be a need for LAs to support system development for any limited housing benefit role?
92. Will there be a need for LAs to have an interface to the Universal Credit systems?
93. What incentive is there for LA Software suppliers to continue support for a system that may die?
94. Will LA Software suppliers be compensated for the balance of their contracts by the DWP?
95. Who will fund the development of the Council Tax Benefit system?

Fraud and Error

96. What is the actual programme for the introduction of the new service?
97. What will be the geographic location of the new teams?
98. What is the structure of the recruitment programme for former local government staff to the new fraud service?
99. Will there be an independent performance audit of the new service?
100. What will the data demands of the new service on LAs?
101. Will there be any link with residue LA fraud services?
102. Who will investigate Council Tax Benefit Fraud under the proposed arrangements?
103. Will any services provided to LAs by the new service be free?
104. Will there be any specific powers to prosecute Council Tax Benefit Fraud?
105. How will the proposed service prioritise their work?

irrv 105 questions for Lord Freud about the implementation of the Universal Credit

Dear Lord Freud,
My Institute is the only professional body in the United Kingdom that specialises in the law and practice of local authority revenues and local taxation collection together with the income related benefits that support these processes.

The position of the Institute has been to support the principles behind “Dynamic Benefits” and further to support the introduction of the Universal Credit; however we cannot support the inclusion of housing costs in your proposals.

There are many reasons behind this statement and in order to give your officials every opportunity to advise you to step back from a potential disaster that will make the Community Charge pale into insignificance we wish to offer you a constructive dialogue which will assist your thinking. The dialogue will be in the form of a series of questions (click here to see 105 questions) which we hope, as you answer them; will give you an insight into the problems you will be facing.

The questions will be posted on the “open” area of our website and we will post the answers as your officials provide them. We hope you will welcome this approach and allow every opportunity for a constructive dialogue to take place which will assist you in the difficult decisions you will have to make over the next two years.

The first one hundred or so questions are attached and these have all been raised by practitioners as important issues that will need to be addressed to ensure a successful implementation of the Universal Credit.

May I also take this opportunity to personally thank you for the support you have given the Institute at our recent conferences. If your officials need any clarification on the questions, can they contact the Institutes Chief Executive David Magor on david.magor@irrv.org.uk

We look forward to your answers.

Yours sincerely
Kerry Macdermott
President

The trainers are extremely experienced practitioners with expert subject knowledge. Our trainers use a plain English approach to aid understanding using a variety of different teaching styles.

Target audience

The courses are designed to appeal to staff who need to understand aspects of revenues, benefits and subject specific areas (either at introductory, general or expert levels).  We also deliver bespoke training on all areas in which the Institute operates.

For a full listing of Training Days in 2011 click here (PDF Download).