|
System /area
|
Opinion
|
Area reviewed
|
Date issued
|
Comments
|
Management actions agreed
|
|
Bank
reconciliations and suspense accounts
|
Substantial
Assurance
|
We
reviewed the arrangements in place to ensure:
·
bank
reconciliations are prepared and reviewed on a regular
basis.
·
suspense
accounts are reviewed regularly.
·
processes for
bank reconciliations following LGR have been fully documented and
communicated.
·
issues with
bank reconciliation and suspense account processes following LGR
have been resolved
|
June
2025
|
All
bank and suspense accounts have named officers responsible. Bank
reconciliations are being completed regularly and have suitable
oversight by Finance. Suspense accounts are monitored
frequently.
Adequate
controls are in place to ensure that all bank reconciliations are
being submitted, and processes exist to investigate any identified
variances.
There are no
documented procedure or guidance notes which would guide officers
with details of best practice and responsibilities. Training has
also not been provided to officers on reconciling bank accounts or
suspense accounts.
There is no
standard template for bank reconciliations.
A
small number of issues with the bank reconciliations remain
unresolved since LGR vesting day.
The
bank reconciliations are not consistently signed by the responsible
officer who completed the reconciliation or by the responsible
senior accountant.
|
4 x
moderate findings,
Responsible
officer:
Senior
Accountant – Corporate and Technical
Bank
reconciliation and holding/suspense account guidance will be
documented. A standard bank reconciliation template will also be
developed. These will be completed by 31 March 2026.
Brought forward
(pre LGR) timing differences (net £97k) will be investigated
and resolved.
Bank
reconciliations will be monitored to ensure appropriate review and
sign off is undertaken.
These final two
actions will be completed by the end of 2025.
|
|
Revenues
|
Reasonable
Assurance
|
The
audit reviewed the arrangements the Council had in place to ensure
the systems were:
·
effectively
collecting council tax and NNDR
·
correctly
applying discounts, exemptions, reliefs, and disregards
·
ensuring
accurate and timely billing
·
pursuing
arrears; and processing refunds and write-offs
correctly.
The work focused on the arrangements in place in 2024/25 when the
council was operating a number of separate systems linked to the
legacy arrangements inherited from LGR. Alongside these existing
systems, officers were working towards implementing a new single
system by June 2025.
|
June
2025
|
The
Revenues Team management had received assurances that council tax
and NNDR was being collected correctly across the seven former
district areas. Collection rates were also being regularly
monitored and reported.
In
2024, the Council used a third-party company to review council tax
single person discounts (the largest discount by value), to check
that the discounts had been correctly applied.
In
other areas (discounts, exemptions, reliefs, and disregards), the
service was able to evidence 10% checking was taking place in every
instance.
Our
sample testing on individual systems highlighted no issues with
billing, refunds and write-offs. Arrears were being managed and
collected via a monitoring spreadsheet and there was evidence of
ongoing review. However, management was not receiving regular
information to provide assurance that all council tax and NNDR
processes were operating as expected.
|
2 x
significant findings were agreed.
Responsible
officer:
Head of
Revenues and Operational Services Manager
A
new
single council tax and NNDR system was introduced in June 2025.
Procedures for the new system should ensure management are
receiving and reviewing sufficient information to provide assurance
that processes are working.
The
service has recruited five new inspectors who will all be in post
by the end of October. A significant part of their role being to
review discounts and exemptions. External review providers will
also be assessed and used as appropriate.
|
|
Adult direct
payments
|
Reasonable
Assurance
|
We
reviewed the arrangements in place to ensure:
·
internal and
public-facing policies and procedures are in place, accessible, and
aligned with relevant legislation.
·
Robust checks
are performed at assessment stage, and on an ongoing basis, to
verify the arrangement is suitable.
·
An
appropriate escalation process is documented and followed in
practice.
·
Exception
applications are correctly authorised, contain a suitable level of
scrutiny, and can be monitored.
·
High-cost
packages are appropriate and monitored for cost
effectiveness.
|
June
2025
|
Procedural
documents were in place but some were outdated and did not reflect
current practice. The documents have since been revised and appear
to be more in line with current practice. Essential guidance on
direct payments is accessible on the website.
Robust checks
are in place before and during a direct payment arrangement, to
ensure compliance and effective use of funds. Ongoing monitoring is
carried out monthly or quarterly based on case
complexity.
While the
escalation process is clearly documented and accessible to staff,
it appears to be limited regarding senior management involvement.
However, our testing showed processes are not always applied
effectively.
There is a
clear and well-documented exceptions process in place, supported by
accessible guidance, formal risk assessments, and appropriate
senior management-level approval. Sampled cases generally
demonstrated appropriate scrutiny and compliance.
High cost
payments had been appropriately assessed, authorised, and monitored
in line with established procedures.
|
2 x
significant and 2 x moderate findings were agreed.
Responsible
officer:
Direct Payment
Team Leaders
Changes to
Direct Payment forms will help to escalate matters directly to the
relevant manager.
Further work on
escalation including training, presentations to Area Management
Teams and review and updating of guidance will be
undertaken.
Improvements to
the reporting of cases, using Power BI will be made.
All
actions have now been completed.
|
|
Creditors
|
Reasonable
Assurance
|
We
reviewed the Council’s arrangements to ensure:
·
there is a
robust payrun process, with suitable checks, authorisations and
supporting documentation in place.
·
feeder file
interfaces are accurate, complete and receive appropriate
authorisation during the loading and balancing process.
·
suitable
procedures are in place for setting up new suppliers and amending
supplier details, and these are followed correctly.
·
Purchase
orders, invoices and non-standard payments receive appropriate
authorisations and there is suitable segregation of duties in
place.
|
July
2025
|
Payrun
processes were robust and contained suitable checks and
authorisations. Appropriate documentation was completed and
retained to evidence the correct application of the
procedures.
File interfaces
to the creditors system are controlled, and control totals checked
to ensure uploads are complete and accurate.
There was
suitable guidance in place for setting up suppliers and making
amendments to supplier details. Procedures for setting up suppliers
are sound, and testing showed that these are followed.
Appropriate
procedures are in place for making supplier bank account changes.
However, testing found in two cases that not all evidence was in
place to show the process had been followed correctly.
Purchase orders
had been completed appropriately for orders, but segregation of
duties between the requestor and authoriser was not always
present.
It
was not possible to confirm that all orders and non-standard
payments had been authorised by the correct budget manager. In
addition, evidence had not always been retained of an
officer’s authority to approve an order.
|
2x
significant and 3x moderate findings
Responsible
Officer:
Assistant
Director Resources (deputy s.151) and Business Support
Manager
Refresher
training on supplier bank detail amendments has been provided to
the team.
Service areas
will be asked to document the details of local delegations from the
budget manager.
Communications
have been sent out to budget managers to remind they should not
self-authorise purchase orders.
|
|
School audit
(Killinghall School)
|
Reasonable
Assurance
|
A
follow up review of financial, governance and business processes
within the school.
|
July
2025
|
A
number of findings had been previously raised relating to the
business, governance and financial management arrangements of the
school.
We
found good progress had been made to address those areas. Some
further improvements were agreed.
|
3 x
moderate and 1 x opportunity findings were agreed.
Responsible
officer:
Headteacher
Policies and
procedures relevant to the improvement areas will be reviewed and
updated. The deadline for completion is 31 December
2025.
|
|
Financial
Assessments
|
Substantial
Assurance
|
A
financial assessment is required to determine whether an individual
has the means to pay for their care needs and if a contribution is
required.
The
purpose of this audit was to ensure
·
internal and
public-facing policies and procedures relating to financial
assessments are in place, up-to-date and aligned with relevant
legislation.
·
financial
assessments are completed in a timely manner with supporting
evidence retained and recorded appropriately.
·
reviews of
financial assessments and contribution amounts are undertaken in a
timely manner.
|
July
2025
|
Internal
policies for charging for residential and community-based services
are in place, and up to date. Sufficient public-facing information
is available via the website.
A
review of a sample of financial assessments found a majority are
being completed within the target timeframe of 10 working days.
Although some did exceed the target, reasonable explanations were
provided in all cases. There was
generally sufficient evidence to support charging
calculations.
Clients are not
always returning financial declarations for non-online financial
assessment cases. The process and requirements for obtaining and,
if necessary, pursuing clients’ declarations is not fully
clear in internal policies.
Some
improvements were also suggested to the wording in the financial
declaration form.
LLA
files indicate that the processes for issuing guidance to service
users and directing them to the OFA tool are not being followed
consistently.
|
1 x
significant and 2 x moderate findings were agreed.
Responsible
officers:
Interim Head of
Financial Assessments, Benefits and Court of Protection and
Benefits and Charging Managers.
Declaration
processes will be reviewed and consideration given to obtaining
declarations on submission of the client’s information where
the assessments are completed via a non-OFA route. These actions
will be completed by 30 September.
The
new form will be fully rolled out by 31 October.
HAS
Care & Support Teams will be supplied with the 2025/2026
version of the ‘What you should expect to pay for care
services’ leaflet in PDF and paper format for issuing to
clients.
|
|
Deprivation of
Liberty Safeguards
|
Reasonable
Assurance
|
The
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is designed to protect a
person's rights if the care or treatment received in a hospital or
care home means they are, or may become, deprived of their liberty
and they lack mental capacity to consent to
those arrangements.
We
reviewed the Council’s arrangements to ensure:
·
suitable
governance arrangements are in place,
·
appropriate
KPIs are in place and performance monitoring carried
out.
·
applications
are processed in line with policy and legislation.
·
application
renewals are carried out within the expected timescales
·
appropriate
training is being provided
|
July
2025
|
Suitable
internal policies and procedure notes are in place which support
staff in accurately carrying out the process through the council's
adult social care system.
Key
performance indicators (KPIs) are guided by the Mental Capacity
Act, which requires monitoring of applications completed against
the twenty-one-calendar day timescale. Other relevant KPIs are
manually produced weekly. Data is regularly shared with and
reviewed by senior leadership.
The council is not completing DOLs within the statutory timescales.
Our testing found:
·
only a small
number of applications sampled were completed within the
twenty-one-day timeframe
·
internal
timescales for completion of best interest assessments and mental
health assessments were not being followed
·
timescales for
panel members approving applications were not being met.
Checks are carried out to ensure staff involved with the
application process have the necessary qualifications and training
to perform their roles.
|
3 x
significant and 2 x moderate findings were agreed.
Responsible
officer:
Head of Older
Adults
Additional
funding of £800k was provided in the 2025/26 budget, which
will assist in preventing a further increase in outstanding
applications.
Officers will
also develop a plan for addressing the key issues outlined to
improve efficiencies
Further
discussions to progress the implementation of performance
dashboards are planned.
All
agreed actions are planned to be completed by 31 December
2025.
|
|
Schools Themed
Audit - Purchasing
|
Reasonable
Assurance
|
North Yorkshire
Council’s school finance manual sets out the expectations on
purchasing for local authority-maintained schools.
We
reviewed the arrangements in place at a sample of schools that
ensure:
·
purchases are
made using appropriately authorised purchase order forms
·
purchasing
cards are used appropriately, and usage is recorded and
independently reconciled
·
VAT
is appropriately managed and or recovered
·
purchases made
by staff using personal funds, for later reimbursement, are
restricted and managed appropriately.
|
August
2025
|
In
the majority of transactions tested, schools did not provide
evidence of purchase orders being completed. There was insufficient
evidence that purchase orders are being raised before the spend is
committed to the transaction.
Schools are
maintaining sufficient contract registers but could benefit from a
standardised template. Additionally, schools did not demonstrate
they are always obtaining details of supplier public liability
insurance cover for on-site services.
There was
insufficient evidence to demonstrate schools are maintaining a
record of purchase card transactions, retaining proof of purchases,
and independently reconciling them.
VAT
had been appropriately managed. However, we saw schools are not
consistently paying for invoiced charges within 30 days.
Schools
provided evidence that reimbursement requests for staff expenditure
were being authorised by appropriate officers, however, the
justification for this expenditure was not always clear.
|
3 x
significant and 2 x moderate findings,
Responsible
officer:
Head of
Revenues and Operational Services Manager
The
Local Authority will develop good practice guidance for schools on
the use of purchase orders. The Schools Finance Team will undertake
this development in conjunction with Veritau and the FMS Team.
Guidance will be shared with schools through the School Admin &
Finance Conference, the Red Bag and CYPS website.
Schools will be
reminded of the financial control requirements with the use of
purchasing cards and prompt payment of invoices at the Autumn 2025
School Admin & Finance Conference
The
deadline for completing all actions is 28 February 2026.
|
|
Council
Companies
|
No
opinion given
|
Following LGR,
officers reviewed the governance arrangements of council companies
and in March 2024 reported to both the Shareholder Committee and
Audit Committee. The review concluded that governance and reporting
structures were largely compliant. Some areas for improvement were
also identified. We reviewed whether:
·
all
the planned recommendations made in March 2024 reporting had been
completed, providing any feedback required
·
governance
arrangements in place through the Brierley Group Board, provide the
Council with the required level of assurance
We obtained information directly from the council companies to
assess the progress made against the recommendations.
|
August
2025
|
Council
internal arrangements need to be further developed to help provide
the necessary ongoing assurances on governance at the
council’s companies.
None of the
March 2024 report recommendations had been fully completed at nine
of the companies reviewed. There were different levels of
compliance and progress. The main omissions related to:
·
conflicts of
interest as standing agenda items at board meetings and the proper
recording of this information
·
the
existence of Conflicts of Interest policies for
Directors
·
Annual
Declarations of Interests for Directors and the maintenance of
appropriate registers
·
training for
Directors, refresher or specific to the role they have for the
respective companies
·
the
contents of annual business plans
·
evidence that
risk registers are treated as an active document and that risks are
properly monitored.
Further
improvements were also required in respect of governance
arrangements through the Brierley Group Board and at the
Shareholder Committee meetings.
|
Several
staffing changes had led to delays in taking the next steps from
the March 2024 report.
With
appointments now in post, we have setup an internal working group
consisting of members from the commercial, finance and legal teams.
This group has met twice and is already taking forward the
improvement areas referred to in this audit.
The
responsibilities of this officer’s group will include
monitoring companies’ performance against the recommendations
set out in this report and supporting good company
governance.
Officers expect
to have completed all necessary work to address all but one of the
recommendations by 31 December 2025. Work on SLAs has an end of
March 2026 deadline.
|
|
Scarborough
Waterpark
|
No
opinion given
|
The
former Scarborough Borough Council approved the granting of a loan
of £9m to Benchmark Leisure Limited in 2013 to help finance
the construction of a new Waterpark.
The
purpose of the audit was to undertake a fact-finding review to
establish the adequacy of the decision-making process followed to
approve the loan and, if possible, the reasons why the risks
relating to the loan were not properly
identified and mitigated.
|
August
2025
|
The
council published the report in full
here
The
report included the following conclusions:
The
proposal considered by Councillors on 9 September 2013 was both
risky and complex in nature. The decision taken by Councillors was
taken in the knowledge there were risks, but in the interests of
Scarborough and its residents, and to ensure the Waterpark and
wider Sands regeneration could be completed. The decision was also
taken at a time when Councils were being encouraged to adopt a more
commercial approach at a time of austerity.
The
Council recognised there were a number of risks in granting the
loan to Benchmark Leisure Limited and therefore put in place
various mitigations. These included only permitting the funding to
be drawn down in stages linked to the construction of the
Waterpark, ensuring the risk of any cost overruns would be met by
Benchmark, requiring parent company guarantees and limiting the
ability of Benchmark to develop other parts of the Sands until the
loan was repaid. External legal advice was obtained on the proposed
agreement and associated governance measures. Importantly the
Council also ensured that it retained the freehold interest in the
site which safeguarded the Waterpark as an asset.
Officers
involved the Leader, Cabinet Members and other Councillors in
working groups and briefing meetings throughout the period prior to
the decision being taken. The reports prepared by officers also
contained sufficient information for Councillors to make a
considered decision but there was a lack of clarity about key
aspects of the proposed agreement with Benchmark Leisure Limited.
In particular, it was not clear whether the Council was borrowing
funds to part-finance the construction of the Waterpark or whether
it was to enable the Council to provide a commercial loan to the
company. Officers also failed to provide a recommendation to Full
Council based on their professional knowledge and assessment of the
risks. This was a particular omission given the complexity of the
proposed agreement with Benchmark.
The
reports to Full Council contained details of the potential risks of
the agreement but in some cases these risks were not fully and
properly articulated. Insufficient attention was also given to the
actions which could be taken to mitigate those risks.
The
key risk that the Waterpark might not be commercially viable was
recognised by Councillors and officers but not adequately
addressed. The projections for visitor numbers prepared by
Benchmark Leisure Limited and Alpamare UK Limited were overly
optimistic, but these were not properly challenged. Instead, the
Council appears to have placed too much reliance on the findings of
the feasibility study undertaken by Leisure Development Partners
LLP but commissioned by Benchmark. This is despite the concerns
expressed by GVA about the assumptions and projections used in the
study.
Alpamare also
had no experience of operating Waterparks in the region and
therefore limited knowledge of the local visitor economy.
Inadequate due diligence was carried out on Alpamare to determine
whether the company was a suitable operator for the Waterpark. The
problems being experienced at the existing Alpamare waterpark in
Bavaria were therefore not identified. Despite the obvious risk
that the Waterpark might not be profitable, the Council failed to
develop any contingency plans until after Alpamare entered into a
company voluntary agreement in 2019.
With hindsight
it is apparent that the decision to approve the loan to Benchmark
Leisure Limited was based on incomplete information and therefore
put the Council at increased risk. Councillors understood that
there were risks with the proposed agreement, but the report should
have set these out more clearly. In the circumstances, it is not
possible to know whether the decision by Full Council would have
been different, but at least Councillors could have been better
informed.
No
evidence has been found to suggest that Councillors or officers
accepted gifts or hospitality from any third parties.
The
lessons from this review should inform the decision-making
processes for any future regeneration projects. In particular, the
need to effectively identify, report and mitigate potential risks
to the achievement of project objectives, and to adequately balance
potential risks and rewards.
|
There were no
NYC management actions.
|
|
Performance
Management
|
Substantial
Assurance
|
We
reviewed whether:
·
the
performance management system and accompanying targets and measures
adequately supports the achievement of the
council’s
strategic priorities.
·
sound systems
and controls are in place to support performance management and the
validation of outputs.
·
data produced
by the performance management system is reliable, accurate and
timely.
|
September
2025
|
Most elements
of the performance management framework are already operational,
but the Head of Strategy and Performance recognises that there is
still some way to go to achieve compliance with performance targets
at all levels across the organisation
KPIs for
corporate reporting are outlined in the Performance Management
Framework (PMF) and are aligned with the councils’ plan
outcomes and strategic priorities.
No
set schedule is in place for the procurement and implementation of
a performance management system across the council. KPI’s and
actions are not held in one place.
Generally,
performance management information is reliable, timely and
accurate.
However, we
found that the utilisation of performance management across the
council is at varying levels, and it is currently an ongoing
process to bring all areas into line and under similar processes to
meet expectations.
KPIs have
always been in place at corporate level and for most former county
services and these are reported quarterly throughout the
year.
|
1 x
significant and 1 x moderate findings were agreed.
Responsible
officers:
Head of
Strategic Performance
The
system is being considered as part of a project also sourcing a PPM
system. Performance management functionality will be prioritised
within this project.
An
overview of team level performance across the council will be
completed by December 2025 and the council will continue to
implement the foundations of performance management in areas/teams
where they are currently not in place.
|
|
Mandatory
Training
|
Reasonable
Assurance
|
Mandatory and
statutory training for non-digitally enabled staff should be
monitored by each service area using a training matrix.
The
purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management
that
·
Statutory and
mandatory training is identified, monitored, and recorded
accurately across service areas, whether delivered digitally or
non-digitally.
·
All
statutory and mandatory training has been completed and is up to
date.
We
reviewed arrangements in four service areas agreed with the Head of
Learning and Development.
|
September
2025
|
All
services reported appropriate consultation with external bodies to
ensure they are aware of updates to legislation that should inform
training needs.
Two services do not have operational role-based
training matrices in place. None of the services accurately
recorded corporate mandatory training requirements in their
matrices. Two services could not show they have a monitoring system
in place, and so we were unable to establish the completion status
of service specific mandatory training. None of the services
accurately recorded corporate mandatory training requirements in
their matrices.
All
services record corporate mandatory training on the Learning Zone.
This training is monitored centrally by Learning and Development.
This central process was effective, although the escalation
procedures for non-compliance are not formalised or documented. One
of the four areas reviewed had poor compliance with corporate
mandatory training.
The
‘Training, learning and development’ policy does not
comprehensively reflect training practices.
Staff have a
clear understanding of the responsibilities within teams. However,
there are no documents which formalise responsibilities.
|
4 x
significant and 2 x moderate findings were agreed.
Responsible
officers:
Head of
Learning and Development.
Learning and
Development (L&D) will remind services of their
responsibilities for training matrices.
All
services will develop a complete and updated training matrix. A
schedule for reviewing training matrices will be
implemented.
L&D will
work with services to review and improve processes for monitoring
training completion.
Relevant
documents will be updated and/or written.
A
paper will be prepared for management board to review the decision
to remove the requirement for refresher training.
Deadlines for
completion range from November 2025 to April 2026.
|
Background
