Agenda item

1.     The report was introduced by the Interim Head of Counter Fraud, James Flannery and presented by Kevin Holyoake (Deputy Counter Fraud Manager (Proactive)). The following key points were highlighted:

        a)     The final data?matching exercise with Adult Social Care had been completed, providing positive assurance regarding case accuracy and existing controls.

        b)     The ASCH Personal Budget data set had been matched for the first time in ten years due to previous data?ownership constraints and had now been incorporated into the routine data?matching programme.

        c)     The Counter Fraud function continued to generate significant value for the Council through both direct recoveries and preventative activity, delivering a return on investment close to 3:1 for the year.

        d)     The team had strengthened the Council’s anti?fraud culture through expanded training, improved tools, increased work in high?risk expenditure areas, and external review to confirm compliance with professional standards.

        e)     Increased awareness and reporting had supported earlier identification of issues and improved governance.

        f)      A Member referred to the enforcement data presented on page 173 and noted significant variation between district authorities. He observed that, following Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), cooperation between tier?1 and tier?2 authorities had improved. It suggested that this goodwill could be used to strengthen joint working on enforcement, particularly in relation to blue badge misuse and parking enforcement. It was proposed that KCC’s senior management engage with districts showing high enforcement activity and encourage wider collaboration across all districts to improve consistency.  Chief Executive Amanda Beer confirmed she would raise this matter at the next Corporate Directors’ meeting.

        g)     A Member queried whether there was a correlation between districts that had received recent training, such as the programme delivered to Maidstone Borough Council, and the higher detection rates shown in the report. He highlighted stark differences between districts, with some reporting very high levels of detected misuse and others reporting very low levels, particularly in West Kent.

        h)     Concern was expressed that low detection rates likely masked higher levels of undetected misuse. The positive developments within the West Kent Partnership were noted and further collaboration were encouraged.

        i)      Mr Holyoake explained that some district enforcement teams operated through private contractors, which influenced their financial and operational models. This could affect the extent to which they prioritised blue badge enforcement.

        j)      Increased engagement from KCC’s Counter Fraud team could help raise awareness and referrals however it was emphasised that local management decisions within districts also played a significant role. Commercial arrangements and contractor priorities would need to be considered when seeking greater consistency.

        k)     Mr Flannery noted that approximately three years earlier, the Chief Executive had led work to improve district engagement, which had resulted in some positive changes. He suggested revisiting this work to reinforce expectations and strengthen the “tone from the top,” which could drive more consistent behaviours and outcomes across districts.

        l)      Referring to Appendix A, a Member noted a year?on?year increase in financial irregularities and queried the reasons behind this. He also asked for an update on the progress of work referenced in Appendix B, particularly in relation to resource capacity.

        m)    Mr Holyoake explained that some of the increase related to asset checks, including laptop losses, which had been identified through ongoing review work.

        n)     Mr Flannery confirmed that some cases involved theft or unauthorised sale of Council assets. The team continued to pursue the return of assets from former staff where appropriate and ensured that cases were correctly classified.

o)     Mr Flannery provided an update on exploratory work relating to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). He advised that the team was in the early stages of market testing and considering AI both as a defensive tool and as a response to emerging fraud risks involving AI?enabled attacks.  He noted that further detail would be more appropriately shared in a future briefing outside the public session due to the sensitivity of operational approaches.

2)     RESOLVED Members NOTED the Counter Fraud progress report

        including reported irregularities from 1 April 2025 to 31 December 2025

RESOLVED Members NOTED the progress of the Counter Fraud Action Plan for 2025/26