The below post is from 2008
HASC = Housing and Adult Social Care
I would add to it by proposing that in some cases Home Help [Adult Social Care] could also be indirectly connected via some employed 'carers' being involved in this scam and somehow obtaining items from void properties of clients who have died - to flog at things like car boot sales.
I will also add that like mentioned in the report the story exposed in the local rag would have [im guessing] warned others of the scam having been rumbled - before any investigation was carried out.
I have adjusted the format of the report but not any of its content.
----------------------------------
The below documents were put up on Camden councils website prior to the HASC scrutiny committee meeting held on 19 Feb 2008 and relate to the internal investigation into the allegations that council staff within the housing department were operating a scam involving the clearing of elderly residents possessions.
Despite certain parts of the documents being blacked out (redated) to hide the identify of the main named 'offender' and investigation processes, the council officer had not made sure that the blacked out parts were actually secure and one could when transferring the documents to another format see what was written under the blacked out parts. I have kept certain parts 'blacked out' by using xxxxxxx in there place, because the xxxxxx parts reveal the processes the councils used in their investigation.
Briefing Note for Cllr Philp
Subject: Summary of Internal Audit investigation into void house clearances
Following our meeting you asked to be provided with a redacted version of the audit report which I attach on the basis that it is treated in the strictest confidence.
As explained at out meeting by Andrew Maughan, Head of Legal Service, the redaction is necessary to protect the identity of the individuals and information covered by the Data Protection Act which would be unlawful to pass to you given your role and the remit of the Scrutiny Committee.
In addition to the redacted report I have outlined below some of the background information that is not necessarily apparent from reading the redacted report but which might further indicate to you the extensive review that has been undertaken by both Internal Audit staff and senior management within HASC.
As was explained to you in our meeting the Council had already received allegations about practices being adopted by the BMD and investigations had been ongoing for some time when unfortunately on 18 January 2007 the CNJ published an article regarding one particular case in relation to an allegedly stolen commode.
The press coverage damaged our investigation and limited the approach taken. I should clarify that due to the nature of enquiries made by the press, and their impact on the evidence available, Internal Audit reached the conclusion, following consultation with local police, that there was little to be gained pursuing that particular case and instead continued with the line of enquiry we were already undertaking. However it is my understanding that the person claiming to be the owner of the commode was advised to make a report of theft directly to the police. I am unable to confirm whether or not that advice was followed or the outcome.
1. Initial referral
Information was received from a whistleblower alleging that a London Borough of Camden employee was responsible for removing items from void properties for personal gain. The employee’s work involved visiting void clear Information received suggested that any items wanted from these properties were marked, and these were removed by other staff t
2. Meetings with managers and senior managers of the service
Various meetings were held with both direct line managers and senior managers in the service.Details were obtained of all staff that the employee line managed as well as
3. Reviewing the written procedures
The written procedures in place at the time were reviewed, for both the BMD and what had been Social Services. It needs to be remembered that at this point services from two departments had recently been merged to form the HASC Department and the procedures in this particular area of activity had not been updated to reflect the merged roles.
An inventory of house contents was not taken prior to a clearance being authorised, which presented a problem to the investigation in that there was no way to check if an item had been removed subsequent to the employees initial visit to a property. The initial investigation approach was to arrange for access to a void property that had been assessed by the employee but not yet cleared, to determine if any marked items could be distinguished.
This activity was facilitated by the employee’s manager. The Internal Audit check did not discover any marked belongings, and given the fact that the nature of the alleged marking and the types of items that might be removed were not known therefore this was not considered a viable way forward to establish the accuracy of the allegations.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5. Police consultation
The Police were contacted in the early stages of the enquiry and advised of the initial Internal Audit findings with a view to establishing if a criminal prosecution would be viable. This was not felt to be possible at this time because of problems in identifying where goods had originated (and thus establishing that there had been a theft or a victim), and concerns about procedures that staff were following (related to the fact that items were destined for disposal, not further use by the Council or another party).
During the course of our enquiries discussions were held with police officers on four separate occasions but at no time was it felt the evidence available was sufficient to instigate criminal proceedings. Additional procedural concerns were identified later in the investigation that would have further undermined any criminal case.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
8. Reviewing records of all properties cleared around September 2006 to try to establish the original owner of the item. Efforts were made to try and establish the origin of items of property. A list of all properties that were cleared at this time was obtained, and the former tenants housing files were retrieved and reviewed, but no further evidence of ownership was established.
9. Further meetings with management prior to formal interviews
Throughout the investigation meetings were held between Internal Audit and senior managers in HASC to advise them of investigation findings and to provide guidance on the procedural review being undertaken within the department.Internal Audit had been advised that no instruction had been issued to staff about removing items from void properties prior to January 2007.
At a meeting on 14 March 2007 Internal Audit was notified that items from cleared properties were in use at the BMD office.
On 30 May 2007 Internal Audit were informed for the first time that staff had been allowed to take items for personal use provided they first sought permission from their manager, and so long as any items were not used for subsequent financial gain by staff.
10. Interviews
A meeting was arranged to conduct an interview with the owner of the house
11. Procedural changes made by the department
In September 2007 the HASC Scrutiny Committee was provided with a report outlining the changes made to the procedures. Changes implemented include:
• New policy and practice guidance produced for staff in Housing and Adult Social Care Department, including social workers and estate officers. This has been implemented and will be reviewed again in March 2008.
- Staff have been reminded of current procedures, particularly in relation to disposal or storage of goods.
- Current contractors were reminded of what our expectations of them are in respect of their disposing of goods from void clearances, and that no goods should be disposed of for personal gain
- Procedures for placing items into storage from voids have also been tightened.
The Council has legal obligations under Section 41 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and current procedure reflects that. The ASC procedure for placing goods into storage for persons dying intestate has been amended to reflect the voids procedure.
• Spot checks on adherence to the voids policy and procedures are now being made as part of the District Office performance monitoring to ensure that these are being adhered to correctly.
• A review of the Personal Finances Team in Adult Social Care (which includes the protection of property function) has been completed and a revised structure for the team has been introduced.
• Alternative methods for disposal of goods were investigated and new arrangements for disposal via the use of a not-for-profit company are under consideration.
12. Summary
In conclusion I am satisfied that the department has taken all reasonable enquiry is not allowed to recur. It is planned that Internal Audit will carry out a review of the newly introduced procedures during 2008 as part of our 2008/2009 annual audit plan.I hope the above is helpful. In accordance with our discussion, for legal reasons, details of the individuals along with related data have been removed.
The notes and report give confidential details of both our investigation in this matter and more generally our working practices and techniques in investigations. The release of this information could damage subsequent operational effectiveness of Internal Audit and I would therefore ask again that you treat this memo and attached report as confidential.
Regards,
Tracy Barnett
Head of Internal Audit & Investigations
_______________________________________
INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
FINAL
DEPARTMENT: HOUSING & ADULT SOCIAL CARE
DATE: 27 JULY 2007 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
SUBJECT: BMD VOID CLEARANCES
FILE REF: HAI0614
CIRCULATION OF REPORT:Neil Litherland Director of Housing & Adult Social Care
Catherine Illingworth Interim Assistant Director of Renewals
Hilary Holmes Audit Liaison Officer, Housing & Adult Social Care
AUDITOR: Michael Sheffield
TELEPHONE:
E-mail:
SUBJECT: BMD VOID CLEARANCES
RESPONSIBLE AUDITOR: MICHAEL SHEFFIELD
This audit report is issued on a “Final” basis. Management should consider all recommendations made in the report. Auditors on the Special Investigations Team (SIT) remain available to discuss this matter further if required. I would be grateful if you could keep SIT informed of any disciplinary/court hearings that auditors would be required to attend.
Please note that as part of our continuing commitment to improving the quality of the audit service I attach an Auditee Survey Form, for your comments on the manner in which the review was undertaken. I should be grateful if you would make arrangements to complete and return this in due course. May I take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for the co-operation received during this review.
Tracy Barnett
Head of Internal Audit & Investigations
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report relates to an investigation concerning a London Borough of Camden (LBC) employee, GF. The investigation was undertaken following the receipt of information suggesting that F took former tenant’s belongings from void properties in the Council’s care for his own benefit.
1.2 The resultant investigation concerned the actions of GF and other staff, management of certain aspects of the void clearances and BMD’s void clearance procedures.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Council tenants are ordinarily responsible for clearing their belongings from their home at the end of their tenancy. However, in certain circumstances the Council may have to perform this function (void clearances) before new tenants can move in, for example if:
• The former tenant passes away and there are no known next of kin;
• If the former tenant abandons the tenancy and there are no known contact details.
2.2 Various Council teams are involved in the void clearance process, including:
(i) The District Housing Office (DHO) authorises clearance of void properties;
(ii) The Personal Finance Service Team (PFST) may undertake checks in certain circumstances, for example if the former tenant is deceased and there are no known next of kin;
(iii) The void cearance agent, e.g. BMD, who perform the clearance.
There is a need to clear void properties quickly so that they can be re-let, in order that the Council makes best use of its’ resources and maximises its’ revenues.
2.3 Where a clearance is required, the Council is only able to effect this where the belongings concerned fall under the Council’s jurisdiction. For example, if the tenancy is abandoned then disposal is covered by the breach of the tenancy conditions.
2.4 The management rks is as follows:
3. AUDIT INVESTIGATION & FINDINGS
The Audit investigation involved reviewing:
• XX records XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• Interviews with staff;
• Review of current procedures, and
- Review XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The full findings are reported below.
3.1 Review of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The XXXXXXXXXX GF’s XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX reviewed by Internal Audit to determine if it contained any evidence of misuse of items from void clearances. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
3.2 Interview with GF
GF was interviewed about items that he may have obtained from void clearances on report. The key points of G's account are as follows:
• GF was aware that Internal Audit had reviewed h prior to attending the interview. It is believed that he deduced this following Audit enquiries with the
• GF arranged for a washing to be provided to 5d as per the email XXXX stated that he did not obtain any financial benefit from this action, and that the £80 was a fee paid to, a BMD, for moving the machine to S. GF did not attend 5 Road in connection with the washing•
GF arranged for a fridge freezer to be delivered to 5 Road from a void property at College Place, as d 2005 The £50 referenl was again paid to RA for transporting the machine, GF viewed this payment as a tip. The Contracts Manager attended the Colleg address with GF and gave permission for him to take the fridge
• GF states that the reference in the X to regularly getting fridg from vacated houses in Camden is incorrect and constitutes an inappropriate choice of wording.
No explanation was given as to why the word ‘regularly’ had been used if this was not in fact the case. GF stated on a separate occasion during the interview that he had taken items from void properties on 2 or 3 occasions while employed by LBC, and that on each occasion he had obtained the Contra permission.
• GF stated that he had never sold any item he obtained from a void property.
• GF is paid a
• GF had not received any instruction from his manager about how to deal with items found in void properties prior to a letter that was issued by th of BMD in the first quarter of 2007, following the press reports concerning misappropriation of tenant’s belongings (Appendix D).
3.3 Review
3.4 Procedures
Various procedures were reviewed, both BMD specific and those applying to other parts of the Council.
3.4.1 Code of Conduct for employees
The code covers the standards expected of Council staff, and it is a key responsibility of all LBC managers to ensure that staff have access to, and understand, the Council’s Code of Conduct.
Section 11.5 of the Code states that staff:‘…must not steal…anything that belongs to Camden Council. You should not steal…anything belonging to our tenants or service users…for example, their money or property.’
3.4.2 The District Housing Office (DHO) Procedures
DHO staff authorise the clearance of void properties. Prior to authorisation the premises are inspected, this may reveal that the former tenant has left belongings at the address. This is more likely under certain circumstances, for example if the former tenant has died, or if they abandoned or were evicted from the property.
The Housing Department Procedure Manual 4 (Voids Management) requires that Estate Officers prepare an inventory which details those items to be disposed of and those which need to be stored. Section 8.2.1 of the Procedure Manual concerns action to be taken when assessing a property for a clearance, it states that:‘Under no circumstances should any item be removed for personal use, no matter how small in size or value.’
3.4.3 The Personal Finance Service Team (PFST) Procedures
PFST staff may also undertake checks in certain circumstances, for example if the former tenant is deceased and there are no known next of kin. PFST procedures require that a property search is undertaken by at least 2 people. An inventory must be taken that documents any potentially valuable items, and 2 photographs must be taken of every room. Valuable items are removed to the PFST safe and are recorded in an asset register.
3.4.4 BMD staff guidance issued January/February 2007
Following the local press reports of organised misappropriation of items from void properties, an instruction was issued by the Interim in approximately January 2007.
This ‘reminded’ staff that the unauthorised removal of goods from a void property would be regarded as theft, and also stated in bold that under no circumstances should any member of the Council remove any items for personal use or gain (Appendi The Interim has since advised Internal Audit that he believed this approach to apply to house clearances since commencing his post in No2006.
3.4.5 Earlier BMD staff guidance
S advised Internal Audit that prior to the issue of the January 2007 guidance there was no written policy on the treatment of items to be cleared from void properties. Previously, staff were advised upon joining the Division that there were no objections to them taking items from void properties providing:
1. Approval was obtained from AI, and
2. That any item removed was not used for financial gain It was considered acceptable for staff to take items for personal use because the alternative was for items to be dumped as waste. It was not considered appropriate for staff to derive a financial gain because AS viewed any money so generated as rightly belonging to the Council. At least 60 members of staff have requested permission to take items from void properties during An35 year employment with Camden.
S advised Internal Audit that BMD staff had previously been able to take items from void properties provided they had appropriate authorisation and did not intend to make a financial gain. There were various opportunities when this information could have been provided to the investigation:
• The initial meeting on 15 when the allegation was discussed with S. This meeting led to an Audit inspection of a vacant property to determine its’ content with a view to determining if a proactive approach might be viable to substantiate or disprove the allegations that items were taken from void properties, and Andy Smith helped to facilitate this.
• A further meeting between Internal Audit and AS. The XXXXXXXX from G concerning the wine and fridr were discussed, and A advised that a check could be made for any properties that these items might have originated from. AH also advised Audit that there had been no written instructions to staff that they should not remove items from vacant properties prior to the letter issued January 2007 (AppeD).
• Various telephone calls and emails following these meetings when information was provided XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX specific addresses that had been cleared, with a view to determining if items had been misappropriated from void properties.
3.5 Interview with BMD managers
Prior to the guidance issued in January 2007, the Intd of BMD and the Cs Manager had a different understanding of the standards that should apply to staff working on the void clearances. The Interim He believed that staff should not take any items from void properties for their personal use. At the same time AS was operating an undocumented system whereby staff could take property for personal use subject to first seeking approval and on the proviso that any acquisition was not to be used for financial gain.
There is no policy currently in place to determine what should happen to any item of value that is discovered during a void clearance. AS has advised IA that approximately 10% of house clearances may contain items of value. However, there is no process in place for clearance staff to report the discovery of such items, and no such items have been reported.
There is no facility currently in place to record any such items that might be found. And mith advised IA that authorisation had been given for Geleg to remove various items for personal use. This included a fridge within the last year. BMD management advised Internal Audit that it is common practice at BMD to make use of items recovered from void clearances in the BMD office. A list of 13 items, including a fridge, has been provided and is at G.
3.6 Inventory records
Andy Smith identified various void clearances from which the washing referenced in Appendix B might have originated. (Similar enquiries were not possible for the fridge freezer because this item had been obtained in 2005 and records for this period are not available.) Sixteen possible tenancies were identified, and the housing files for each were reviewed to try and determine which ones contained a fridge freezer at the time of the void clearance.
None of the files contained any record of the house contents at the time of the void clearance. The ‘Housing Department Procedure Manual 4 – Voids Management’ requires that an inventory is taken of former tenant’s goods where written permission to dispose has not been obtained (eg abandonment of tenancy, deceased tenant).
4. MATTERS OF CONCERN
Two key areas of concern have emerged from the investigation.
4.1 Firstly, there appears to be a serious lack of written policy and procedure in place at BMD with regard to void clearances. There are no instructions in place on how to deal with any items of value that might be discovered during a clearance, there is no process for recording such items, and the continued use of items from void clearances in the office sends the wrong message to staff.
4.2 Secondly, the various Council teams involved in house clearances operate to different standards. PFST staff are required to take an inventory and on the basis of the limited records reviewed during this investigation appears to do so. The DHOs are expected to take an inventory of void properties under certain circumstances but do not appear to do so.
DHO staff have received categorical guidance that they should not take anything from void properties whereas BMD staff have previously been told the opposite upon starting work.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Organised activity
This investigation has not found any evidence of organised activity to unlawfully remove items from void properties for personal gain. Indeed, the procedures operated by AS up to January/February 2007 appear to have allowed staff to access such material with a degree of legitimacy.
5.2 Procedural Issues 5.2.1 Building Maintenance Division
BMD Staff had not received clear guidance from their managers prior to January/February 2007 that it was wrong to take items from void clearances for their personal use.The Interim Head of BMD and the Contracts Manager had a different understanding of how desirable items forming part of a void clearance should be treated between the period November 2006 and January 2007, and it is difficult to see how a consistent message could be given to staff under such circumstances.
The continued use of items originating from house clearances in the BMD office sends a confusing signal to employees about what standards are expected of them when disposing of items in the Council’s care.There is no procedure currently in place to determine what action should be taken if items of value are discovered during a void clearance. No records are kept, even though the Contracts Manager has advised Internal Audit that approximately 10% of void properties may contain items of some value.
5.2.2 District Housing Offices
No evidence was found that an inventory had been taken at any of the tenancies reviewed. Some of these tenants had not given written permission for disposal of their property.
5.2.3 General Voids Policy
There are significant differences in the procedures and actions of the various teams involved in void clearances in Camden, in particular:
• Historically, some staff have been told that they can access items from void clearances for personal use while others have been told that this is categorically unacceptable;
• One team takes an inventory of valuable items, another is supposed to but does not appear to do so, while BMD do not have any guidance in place on how to deal with any such items that operatives might encounter.
5.3 GF
5.3.1 GF has taken items from void properties for his personal use. The wording of the email daix A) strongly indicates that this has happened more regularly than GF admitted at interview. Similarly, the XXXXXXX XXXXXX evidence appears to contradict the interview account that payment for the washing machine was for delivery by another employee rather than for GF own benefit. Althou The system operated by AS up to January 2007 allowed for staff to take items from void properties.
Despite the inconsistencies in GF’s account detailed above, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that his personal actions were unlawful given the procedural arrangements put in place by his manager.
5.3.2 GF has used the Council’s email system to send offensive material t
5.4 The Contracts Manager
5.4.1 The system operated by AS was not compatible with the Interim Head of BMD’s expectations or the Council’s Housing Manual. It could also be seen to be at odds with the guidance given in the Council’s Code of Conduct.
5.4.2 There was a significant delay between AS’s first meeting with Internal Audit and the disclosure that BMD staff were permitted to take items from void properties. AS was sufficiently aware of the nature of the investigation to be aware that this was highly relevant information, and the delay in providing this information has lengthened the time taken to investigate these concerns.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Procedural Issues
6.1.1 Building Maintenance Division
Staff should not be able to take items from house clearances for their personal use. BMD management should devise and implement clear procedures about the treatment of items removed from house clearances. This policy should be consistent with guidance implemented elsewhere, including the Housing Department’s Procedure Manual 4 (Voids Management). Procedures should be issued to the staff concerned, and management should ensure that staff understand the standards they are expected to work to.
The practise of utilising items from house clearances in the BMD office should be suspended immediately to avoid sending a mixed message to staff. BMD management should ensure that staff receive a consistent message from both the Interim Head of BMD and the Contracts Manager about what is acceptable. If items are retained from a clearance for whatever reason, these should be clearly documented, so that the items and their place of origin can be clearly determined at a later time. Indeed, where feasible, the Council should seek to re-use items left behind by previous tenants.
This could be by means of:
• Recycling viable items for the benefit of future tenants;
• Sale of viable items to help fund clearance costs, thereby reducing the tax burden on Camden rate payers;
• By negotiation with clearance providers for a preferable rate for clearance works in exchange for allowing retention by the provider of any viable items which form part of the house contents and which the Council legally owns. Such measures would be compatible with the Council’s ‘Better and Cheaper Agenda’, Camden’s Local Agenda 21 Plan and the Community Strategy. Any such measures should be co-ordinated with other Council Teams involved in house clearances.
6.1.2 District Housing Offices
An inventory should always be taken where the Voids Management Procedures require this.
6.1.3 General Voids Policy
Best practice should be shared between all teams involved in void clearance work. Senior management should ensure that a consistent approach is adopted across all of the Council services involved.
6.2 GF
6.2.1 Management will need to consider whether GF's actions breached
6.2.2 BMD management should consider disciplinary action with regard to G
6.3 Management Issues
6.3.1 The Council’s senior management should consider if an adequate level of control was exercised by the relevant BMD managers concerning the procedures put in place for void clearance staff to follow. Disciplinary action shoul
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
