Warrington Joint Working Team - Living Together Fraud

Warrington is a relatively prosperous town situated between Manchester and Liverpool. The population in April this year stood at 190,000, unemployment was comparatively low at 2.1% the benefits caseload was around 14,000.

Back in 1999 at a meeting with the DWP (formerly BA) fraud team the liaison officer and I were wading through a number of the early Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI ) reports. There were hundreds of recommendations to consider which would effect us if the BFI landed at that time. We also noticed the same issues were recurring on a number of reports. Rather than react to an inspection we decided to be proactive!

InCase an electronic case management system had been in use for over a year so it was easy to analyse the LA investigation data. The DWP had just changed financial regimes and weren't looking for weekly benefit savings any longer. Programme Protection targets were the name of the game and sanctions and prosecutions were the order of the day. Area Benefit Review data revealed the fraudsters profile nationally was the single, male, jobseeking householder under 25. We had less than 300 cases of this type and due to there being more jobs than unemployed people, the majority did not remain on benefit for long. In Warrington there are a high number of call centres and distribution centres so it is relatively easy to find work.

When we analysed our investigation data we found that 38% of all referrals received related to undeclared partners. 15% of the files investigated were closed with a benefit saving. 86% of the claimants we recorded a saving against were back on benefit within 6 weeks. We had never prosecuted a living together fraud case before, but it soon became clear that living together fraud was our biggest risk locally and we weren't best at tackling it!

Once we knew and understood what the problem was we consulted with everyone who was involved in the process of an investigation from clerical officers through to decision-makers and prosecutors. Our personal experience showed that admissions of long-term living together fraud were few and far between. We aimed to develop a methodology for dealing with this type of fraud based around the assumption that offences would never be admitted at interview, and each case would have to be robust enough to stand up to the scrutiny of barristers in the Crown Court.

The next stage was to test the theory and find the cases proactively. Here we enlisted the help of the Housing Benefit Matching Service to provide a data strip of lone parents within a specified age range who had received benefits continuously for over three years. This produced over 550 claims, which was too many to handle given that at this stage it was more like a hobby attached to our normal roles, than a project. We narrowed this down to 110 cases by including cases where previous fraud had been alleged. We selected a sample of 30 cases to test the theory and applied the new working methods. The results were surprising and supported the theories and research we had conducted, 9 of the 30 cases were successfully prosecuted for living together fraud, 6 more ceased claiming benefits with past period overpayments. The overpayments from these cases alone exceeded £100,000, which was sufficient to direct us into compiling a Joint Working Bid.

Although the results were good, we found working across two sites led to some duplication of work and difficulties in arranging simple tasks such as amending interview appointments. Prosecution policies and working practices were quite different in some areas, so harmonisation of stationery, procedures and policies was next on the list. For true joint working the ideal was to co-ordinate investigations from one location.

The second phase of the Joint Bid was to secure accommodation and provide access to the numerous IT systems we use. The LA uses a DIP system along with a benefits system and the InCase fraud case management system supplied by INTEC. Other databases accessed include payroll, electors and the Internet. DWP staff needed access to their "legacy" systems too. The office was located on an empty floor of the DWP as there was plenty of free space and excellent interviewing facilities. The LA computer network was extended into the building and a broadband line was leased to provide fast access to systems.

The fraud software suppliers, INTEC, spent a good deal of time upgrading the system which is now web-based enabling cases to be updated in real time by DWP and LA investigators. All investigators can view and input details of investigations onto the system and all stationery is produced from the system with logos from both organisations on correspondence. The DWP officers no longer use hand-written case notes, as this is now system generated. The staff on the team have been very pleased with this method of working. INTEC and LA IT sections were extremely helpful with the initiative. It was ground-breaking technology for us and there were occasions when we all wondered if the IT would work.

The resource level dedicated to Joint Working has increased to five full-time staff. The funding dependency on the Joint Regional Board has now reduced to 60% of the staff costs. The idea being to pump prime the initiative with Joint Working cash whilst trying to achieve true sustainability by re-investing the subsidy the team has generated.

As the output from the original data scan was investigated we adopted a process of continual review of the activity. The profile of the living together fraudster was developing. We found that private tenant lone parents living in properties that had not previously been let, with a male landlord who let one property only, with cheques paid to the tenant was the highest risk to our system. With this knowledge we developed more data extraction rules to re-focus the activity and target more effectively. The success rate of individual cases examined increased from 15% to 52%.

New software was being developed by INTEC and we were the first install the new InSearch system, which made the data drilling much easier. Producing bespoke reports against the entire caseload now took minutes rather than months. Scans of dependant's surname against landlord details were produced, 21 cases of breaches of HB Regulation 7 were identified and proven. Most were not prosecuted due to the format of the questions on our benefit application form. This identified a weakness in administration and a revised application form asking more detailed questions has since been produced.

After this strand of activity some of the landlords themselves were found to be less than honest. A number were in receipt of other state benefits and had not declared rental income, some owned the properties they were claiming HB on, others were housing "ghost" tenants with addresses being used as alternatives to support living together claims and multiple claims. In essence the more resources we dedicated to proactive work the more fraud we found.

Bids for funding were submitted to a DWP Project Board at first, which was made up of the Programme Protection Manager and Fraud Area Manager. Costs applied for included staffing, IT equipment, overtime, travel and subsistence.

The latest bid was submitted through the Operational and Regional Board regime. The bid template has been updated several times this year, for the most recent version please contact the Operational Board Chair for your area or the DWP Joint Working Unit on (01253) 783608. Copies of our bid are available by e-mailing a request to:- fraudteam@warrington.gov.uk

The team has been successful in securing 62 criminal convictions to date, and have generated more than £1.3m in overpayments. Cases of multiple claims and landlord fraud exceeding £50,000 are now dealt with every few months. We are now starting to reap the rewards with a raised profile internally. Externally our hotline becomes hotter and we have used our annual Council Tax billing leaflet to publicise the project and hotline telephone numbers. This is sent to over 80,000 properties and resulted in a 300% increase in hotline referrals over a three-month period. The media response has been excellent having had over 45 articles published in both the local and national press the local fraudsters are aware of what we do. The recognition of the work by Malcolm Wicks MP at the Fraud Symposium was a welcome boost to the team after all their hard work and efforts. We hope the funding and political will continues and would like to thank all who have helped the success along the way.