Nearly 290 cases of possible fraud were probed by Milton Keynes Council in the last financial year, a report has revealed.
But the audit committee heard that fraud by individuals – including members of staff – is not considered to be a major issue in comparison to other risks that the council has failed to get a grip on.
Independent committee members Imtiaz Farookhi said a report presented at Thursday’s meeting gave the wrong impression.
He claimed that by highlighting fraud, which is not a major problem, the full picture was not being presented.
Fraud cases included the recovery of £8,000 from members of staff, one who was sacked, another who resigned and an ex-employee who claimed sickness absence while working for another employer.
Council internal auditors also managed to prevent the loss of £360,000 in five council house right to buy applications, and made 36 home visits over other housing related issues.
Two dodgy home tenancies were also “recovered” and rented out to people in housing need, the report to Thursday’s audit committee said.
The council’s chief internal auditor, Duncan Wilkinson, said fraud cases were reported in greater detail because officers had been asked to provide “granularity”.
Although Mr Wilkinson told the committee that reports of fraud are investigated, he agree that other issues were more significant, although he added a rider that the council doesn’t know what it doesn’t know.
He said officers are “paranoid” about closing potential loopholes.
Mr Wilkinson said: “As much as those numbers might appear high they are quite low in comparison to other areas. We are a very large organisation employing a lot of people.
“£8,000 is a large amount in anybody’s reckoning but for the council, as an organisation of our size, that’s not a material sum.
“We do attack these issues whether it is for £1 or £100,000, we take the same approach to them.”
Mr Wilkinson has concluded that the council is “satisfactory” in its overall internal audit rating, which has stayed the same as last year. He said he had been unable to rate the council as “good”.
The committee heard that persistent issues with the buying in of services and in contract management were “consistent issues proving stubborn”.
The committee noted the report.
