Contact your Parish Council
2009/10 Audit Reports receiving a Limited or Minimal Level of Assurance where controls have been since been adequately improved during the year
Audit Title: Maidstone Youth Forum
Service Section: Assistant Director of Customer Services and Partnerships
Issued Date: June 2009
Audit Scope: The audit set out to:
· Establish whether the Council’s role and relationships with the Maidstone Youth Forum are clearly defined and meets corporate objectives
· Assess the adequacy of the Maidstone Youth Forum Constitution and its practical application
· Establish if there are strong financial controls over income and expenditure
· Assess the management of fund-raising activity
· Establish the adequacy of project management arrangements for the Switch Café project
Findings: The main issues arising from the audit were that there were no Terms of Reference setting out the Council’s role and responsibility for the Maidstone Youth Forum; the Youth Forum Constitution needed to be updated; a risk assessment had not been completed on the Council’s involvement with the Youth Forum; the Switch Café project plan needed updating; a full risk assessment was needed for the Switch Café project.
Assurance Assessment at the time of the audit: Limited
Management Response: All of the recommendations made have been accepted and the actions are being implemented as a matter of urgency.
Adequacy of Response: Adequate
Key Actions Agreed:
· To provide the Cabinet Member with a position statement on the Youth Forum
· To produce a Terms of Reference to show the Council’s roles and responsibilities for the Youth Forum.
· To update the Youth Forum’s Constitution.
· To risk assess the Council’s roles and relationship with the Youth Forum.
· To update the Switch Café project plan.
· To complete a full business / operational risk assessment of the Switch Café project.
Follow Up date: November 2009
Follow Up Assurance Assessment: Substantial
Audit Title: Grants to Outside Bodies
Service Section: Assistant Director of Customer Services and Partnerships
Issued Date: June 2009
Audit Scope: The audit set out to:
· Identify and evaluate the new grant scheme procedures introduced in April 2008
· Test a sample of grants awarded to consider compliance with the agreed procedure
· Establish and evaluate the follow up procedures to ensure that the grant money is spent as stated in the application
Findings: The main issues identified during the audit were:
· the ‘scheme’ was in need of updating,
· the budget for one-off bids in 2009/10 was overspent by £22,858,
· there was no central record maintained of all of the grant payments being paid to outside bodies,
· there was no reconciliation between the amount of grant funding awarded and the amount paid,
· decisions made by the Grant Panel were not formally minuted,
· records were not held on the grant files to evidence decisions made
Assurance Assessment at the time of the audit: Limited
Management Response: All of the recommendations have been accepted. The majority of the agreed actions were planned to be implemented by the end of the calendar year. However, three of the agreed actions cannot be fully implemented until 2010 in accordance with the grants timetable.
Adequacy of Response: Adequate
Key Actions Agreed:
· To update and risk assess the scheme
· To minute Grant Panel meetings to evidence how grant money has been awarded
· To ensure the budget setting process for one off bids is more realistic
· To complete periodic reconciliations between grant money awarded and the amount paid
· To consider re-introducing a scoring system when assessing grant applications
· To improve the records held on the grants file to evidence decisions made and how payments were calculated
Follow Up date: November 2009
Follow Up Assurance Assessment: Substantial
Audit Title: Development Control Enforcement
Service Section: Development Control
Issued Date: June 2009
Audit Scope: The audit review set out to examine and evaluate the procedures in place over the arrangements to manage the Council’s Planning Enforcement process. In particular the audit considered policies and procedures; the system used to record complaints (APAS); the receipt of complaints and initial actions; investigation and progression of cases; the role of Legal Services and the monitoring of Enforcement Notices issued.
Findings:
· There was a need to prepare a policy/strategy setting out the objectives of the Planning Enforcement Team
· The APAS computer system needed to be used consistently to record and monitor the progress of enforcement cases.
· Reports needed be produced from the APAS system to enable enforcement complaints to be monitored and reported.
· There was an urgent need to improve procedures over the management and monitoring of planning complaints where it is considered that a planning breach has occurred.
· The two scored matrices used to determine how quickly a case would be progressed to Legal Services needed to be combined; the use of two separate matrices distorts the overall view of those cases waiting for enforcement action to be taken.
· Planning enforcement cases were not passed to Legal Services on a timely basis.
· The record maintained of cases passed to Legal Services for enforcement action to be taken was incomplete.
· A database is maintained of planning enforcement notices issued. However there was no evidence of regular monitoring of cases to confirm that the enforcement notices had been complied with.
Assurance Assessment at the time of the audit: Limited
Management Response: All of the recommendations made have been accepted and the actions are planned to be implemented by February 2010. (Note: The Audit Committee received a verbal response from the Development Control Manager at its meeting in November 2009).
Adequacy of Response: Adequate
Key Actions Agreed:
· A draft policy has been produced and consultation was underway prior to seeking formal agreement with the Cabinet Member in October 2009
· Planning Officers (Enforcement) have been instructed to ensure that information is entered on the APAS system consistently and is updated to reflect the action taken.
· Improved monitoring of ‘open’ planning complaints has been introduced.
· The two matrixes will be combined
· Improved procedures will be introduced to record and monitor cases passed to Legal Services for an enforcement notice to be issued
· Improved procedures will be introduced over the monitoring of cases to confirm that the enforcement notices have been complied with.
Follow Up date: January 2010
Follow Up Assurance Assessment: Substantial
Audit Title: Grounds Maintenance – DSO
Service Section: Assistant Director of Environmental Services
Issued Date: September 2009
Audit Scope: The audit set out to:
· Establish how the specification/schedule of works is compiled and resourced and how unplanned/reactive work is managed
· Identify whether the grounds maintenance work is subject to adequate monitoring and performance management
· Consider whether there is adequate budgetary control over income and expenditure
· Establish whether grounds maintenance equipment is fully accounted for and properly maintained
Findings: The main issues arising from the audit related to:
· A need to review and revise ‘contract’ documentation
· Long term grounds maintenance plans were needed for the Crematorium and Cemetery
· The format of ‘Additional Work Requests’ for the Crematorium and Cemetery needed to be standardized
· Tighter controls were urgently needed over the use of fuel cards and the reconciliation of fuel invoices
· Training programmes needed to be standardised
· Health and safety assessments were required, including fire evacuation
Assurance Assessment at the time of the audit: Limited
Management Response: All of the recommendations were accepted and the actions planned to be implemented by March 2010.
Adequacy of Response: Adequate
Key Actions Agreed: To:
· Review the contract specification for the grounds maintenance work
· Develop a Management Plan for the Crematorium and the Cemetery
· Introduce a ‘team-site’ for the Crematorium and Cemetery for the submission of additional work requests
· Issue Kent Highways with a debtors invoice for the work to be completed in 2009/10
· Introduce a standard training matrix for all Grounds Maintenance staff
· Review of fuel cards and fuel accounting reconciliations
· Complete a full health and safety audit on the Grounds Maintenance team by the end of November 2009 and a review of the new depot during the first week of occupation
Follow Up date: March 2010
Follow Up Assurance Assessment: Substantial
Audit Title: Depot fuel supplies
Service Section: Assistant Director of Environmental Services
Issued Date: December 2009
Audit Scope: To establish the adequacy of controls surrounding the purchase, storage and use of fuel at the depot.
Findings: The main issues arising from the audit were:
· The petrol store was not adequately secure
· Fuel containers were not numbered and therefore were not adequately accounted for
· Petrol logs did not record petrol deposits and withdrawals or a running balance to indicate how much petrol is in stock at any point.
Assurance Assessment at the time of the audit: Minimal
Management Response: All of the recommendations have been accepted and the actions are planned to be implemented by the end of December 2009.
Adequacy of Response: Adequate
Key Actions Agreed: To:
· Review the list of key holders for the fuel stores
· Hold all spare keys to the fuel store securely
· Hold fuel for the Grounds Maintenance and Street Cleansing teams separately.
· Number all fuel containers and introduce a process whereby the containers are emptied in number order
· Introduce a new fuel log sheet to record opening and closing stock levels and deposits and withdrawals from the store
· Introduce a monthly stock check on fuel in store to establish that all fuel is fully accounted for and the level of usage is reasonable.
· Instruct the Health and Safety Officer to assess the adequacy of fuel storage facilities at South Park and at the Depot.
Follow Up date: January 2010
Follow Up Assurance Assessment: Substantial