Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Scrutiny of Services

To review the summary of audit findings and Management Action Plan produced as a result of an internal audit review.

Colin Kemp and Mark Brett-Warburton left the room at 11.55am

Colin Kemp returned at 12.02pm

Mark Brett-Warburton returned at 12.05pm

Witnesses:

Claire Barrett, Deputy Chief Property Officer

Nigel Jones, Performance Manager

Siva Sanmugarajah, Lead Auditor

David John, Audit Performance Manager

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    Members raised concerns that money had been lost from not having a proper method of recording money owed to the Council. Furthermore questions were raised as to why the audit opinion recorded ‘no position’. The Deputy Chief Property Officer explained that the Property Asset Management System (PAMS) had been live since September 2015 and the interface between the system and SAP was the only element of the system that was not working. The officer emphasised that there had been no loss of rental income due to the interface not working. There had been opportunity costs to officers through duplication of inputs to both PAMS and SAP. PAMS would continue to be developed and work to align the system with East Sussex County Council would be considered.

2.    A Member queried a key finding in the audit report which stated that the absence of a senior officer on maternity leave with no replacement meant that the project was delayed. The Performance Manager stated that the decision not to go live with the system was due to stakeholder involvement rather than officer cover.  He went on to further explain that stakeholders involved in the project decided to delay implementation as processes in place necessitated more work.

3.    It was explained that the final module of PAMS was implemented and went live in September 2015. The system gives officers access to all the information held by the property service. The service decided to go live with the system to enable officers to gain experience with the system.

4.    The Lead Auditor explained that PAMS had been implemented module by module over the past few years, with the Income Module being the final one to 'go live' in September 2015. Although this module had been partially 'live' since September 2015, it was not possible for the auditor to review the whole system, including the interface and hence the auditor did not feel that it was reasonable to give an audit opinion on a system that was not fully operational. The auditor however, agreed to re-visit this area once the system has been fully operational for a reasonable period of time.

5.    Members raised concerns over the lack of senior management ownership of the project. The Performance Manager stated that an IMT project manager was taking the lead on the project but was no longer involved in the project. For this reason the service has been liaising with stakeholders and has organised two meetings in October to agree a plan for the introduction of the system. 

6.    A Member queried why the service was developing a bespoke interface and not purchasing an already developed system. It was explained that due to the specialist nature of the work being done it was preferable to have a bespoke system in place.

7.    The Performance Manager explained that in total there were 800 properties from which property services collected rent. The details of these properties can be found in the PAMS system

Resolved:

The Board agreed that the service will report its progress against the high priority recommendations to Democratic Services, and a failure to meet improvement targets would result in a further report to the Board.