Matches can be internal to the authority. For example, there might be two payments for a similar amount to the same contractor, and those will appear as a match. Alternatively, two public bodies could be involved. There might be somebody who is on Moray Council payroll and on Highland Council payroll—that would also be a match.
The matches appear under different criteria. In Moray Council’s case, in the last cycle, we got back about 2,800 matches at the end of January. Those were spread across the match groups—housing benefit, student loans, payroll, creditor payments, housing waiting lists and so on. At the end of January or the beginning of February, I carry out an overview. I have a look at the matches and the volumes and think about the potential issues. Issues that relate to housing benefit or the council tax reduction scheme, which have been mentioned, tend to be passed to the single corporate fraud investigator that we have in the council, because she has a background in benefits and council tax.
I review the remainder to consider whether they are appropriate. I gave a couple of examples earlier. It is quite possible for a supply teacher to work two days a week in Highland Council and three days in Moray Council. That would appear as a match, but it is not an issue, so that can quickly be discounted. Similarly, with creditor payments, there might be a contract with a school bus provider that charges the same rate per day. If there are 20 days at £100 in March and 20 days at £100 in May, the invoice value will be the same, but that is not an issue.
I do an overview of all the sections to determine which matches should be looked at. In the process, there are recommended matches that come from the Cabinet Office. Of my 2,800 matches this year, about 700 are recommended. As I said, some of those I review and some I do not, depending on the risk assessment. The information might be passed to the fraud investigator I mentioned or to a housing officer, somebody who works in community care and who deals with blue badges and residential care or one of my auditors. Those people do not work on the issue constantly. There are other demands on their time, as has been said. However, I look to those people during February, March and April to review in more detail some of the matches that I have indicated as being higher risk. In the most recent period, they have been starting to feed back information on completed investigations. Alternatively, as has been mentioned, if another party is involved, we will send a request, which is feasible in the system, to ask that party to confirm their side of the information so that we can determine what further action might need to be taken. That happens during the spring.
At this point in time, the work that started in October is not fully completed. Ordinarily, our external auditors get a progress update, usually around 30 June. In my programme, five months after the matches have been issued, we should at least have a position statement for the council and the external auditor to say what we have done with the 2,800 matches. Some of them fall off the end of the table, and no further action will be taken, because I have deemed them to be low risk.
That gives you an overview, although I do not know whether that was what you were looking for.