Agenda item

The committee is requested to consider and note a) current progress against the 2016-17 Audit Plan, b) the two Audit Reports, c) the update on the Car Parking Audit recommendations and d) the 2017-18 Audit Plan.

The committee considered the report in the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mr James introduced the report giving a brief overview of the recommendations from the two audit reports and the review of Car Parks G4S Income audit recommendations. Mrs Dower, Mrs McKay and Mrs Murphy attended to answer members’ questions.

Community Infrastructure Levy Audit Report

·             Do we have problems with developers not paying CIL contributions? Mrs Dower advised that several developers had not paid by the due date but that CIL regulations gave us powerful and effective means to recover the fees. She had held a forum for developers in the district so that they were aware of their commitment.

·             Are gypsy and traveller sites subject to CIL? Mrs Dower advised that boats and caravans and non-permanent buildings were not subject to CIL, however if the site required a utility block then that was considered chargeable.

Estate Rent Arrears:

·             Mr Barrett was concerned at the age of some debts given that there is a general legal rule that the council had a six year time limit to recover old debts. Mrs McKay advised that the audit had drawn out some issues. New procedures were being circulated that would address these issues. Mrs Belenger was working on a new Write-Off  policy linked to the Council’s Corporate Debt Recovery Policy.. Mrs Belenger advised that the Constitution allowed Mr Ward, as Head of Finance & Governance Services, to write off debts and the policy needed to set out officers’ responsibilities. The Corporate Debt Policy would be refreshed at the same time.

·             Mr Hobbs wondered what checks had been carried out to ensure that the amount of staff time taken to recover the debts was proportional. Mrs McKay added that some debts were historically for small sums and incremental steps were required so that as the debts get larger there are checks and balances to make sure the debts are managed and the process is proportional. Car Parks had their own regulations and recovery procedures for debt.

Car Parks G4S Audit – review of recommendations:

A report to the committee in November had highlighted the recommendations and this review six months’ on was to check progress. Five recommendations had been completed and one was still ongoing. The internal audit team would revisit these areas to ensure progress was being maintained.

·             Mr Hobbs asked for information on the difference between on and off street Penalty Charge Notice payments and how they were differentiated in the accounting system.  Mrs Murphy advised that in 2010 the council was given powers by WSCC, via Sussex Police, to take on on-street enforcement. The new civil enforcement officers now cover both the on street enforcement and off street enforcement in the council’s 29 car parks. Each penalty charge notice (PCN) had its own code and that tied to an amount payable in the accounts. There was an arrangement with WSCC that income generated for on-street enforcement was passed back to WSCC and off-street enforcement was retained by the council. There was a complicated formula to calculate this and ensure proportionality in the accounts.

·             Do we deduct something for our costs of administration? Mrs Murphy advised that there was a joint enforcement account with WSCC and the contract required us to maintain clear accounts with them. A proportion of the costs went back to WSCC dependent upon the split. The volume of PCNs was roughly 55 to 60% on-street and the remaining off-street. It was essential to maintain and enable free flow of traffic by patrolling on streets, particularly around schools, and patrols were intelligence led where there was a need for those resources to be allocated.

·             Are there any incentives for the patrolled officers to work in certain areas? Mrs Murphy advised that there was no incentive to work in particular areas. All civil enforcement staff were employed directly by the council and were not outsourced. The council was not allowed to set targets for PCNs. However routes were monitored and if there were no particular issues then we would reassess the patrol in that area. Feedback is received from the public on particular hot spots so rotas were allocated appropriately.

·             Are the civil enforcement officers covered by the cost of tickets? Mrs Murphy advised that the income generated did cover the enforcement staff costs, but the council also needed to cover the costs of back office admin staff who administered appeals and season tickets, machine operation and also to cover the maintenance of the 29 car parks.

·             Mrs Murphy offered members the opportunity to spend time out on patrol with a civil enforcement officer.

·             Mr Morley suggested that there was a disincentive to CEOs issuing car parking tickets if the linage and signage was not clear and he encouraged district councillors to hold the county councillors to account to rectify this as there were financial implications. Mrs Murphy advised that staff regularly met with WSCC to discuss such issues but could also undertake minor road marking jobs.

·             Mrs Graves wished to know the length of stay allowed in the square in Petworth. Mrs Murphy advised that it was her understanding that there was a limited bay area with a no return within one hour. The CEO would apply an observation to that vehicle and if that vehicle was still in the bay beyond the hour they would issue a PCN.

Mr James then introduced the Annual Audit Plan for 2017-18. He advised that as a result of the shared services project with Arun and Horsham not being progressed, there was a requirement to find savings within internal audit and Appendix 5 therefore showed a reduced number of hours. He envisaged that a large proportion of work would be around the key financial controls which support the Council’s financial accounts in areas identified by the external auditors. Audits would still be carried out where services areas  were considered high risk, or hadn’t been carried out before.

RESOLVED

1)          That the audit reports for Community Infrastructure Levy and Estate Rent Arrears be noted.

2)          That progress against the 2016-17 Audit Plan be noted.

3)          That the 2017-18 Audit Plan be noted.