To update members on the progress of internal audit work and to bring to their attention any key internal control issues arising from work recently completed.

To assure the committee that action is being taken on risk related issues identified by internal audit. This is monitored through acceptance of agreed management actions and progress updates in implementing the action plans. In addition, occasions where audit actions not accepted by management are documented if it is considered that the course of action proposed by management presents a risk in terms of the effectiveness of or compliance with the council’s control environment.

N.B Appendix A SWAP Internal Audit Progress Report Quarter 4 2025-26 – Paper to follow.

The Head of Internal Audit introduced the report confirming that six final reports had been completed since the committee’s previous meeting, with three receiving high or substantial assurance. The audit team continued to track all agreed actions, noting that 19 actions were more than 90 days overdue. These outstanding items related to two historic audits, which were planned to be incorporated into the 2026/27 audit programme.

In response to committee questions, it was noted;

1. The Director of Finance (DOF) in relation to concerns raised regarding the Transport Hub report explained that discussions had taken place with SWAP about the audit findings. An independent industry expert had reviewed the project, and their conclusions differed from SWAP’s report. Further joint work would be conducted to understand the inconsistencies. Internally, the transport hub project was rated green in the Q3 performance report and was progressing on schedule, with a commitment to provide the committee with a fuller briefing once the additional review was completed. (action 2025/26-14) It was acknowledged that lessons had been learned and reports would go through proper internal quality assurance and corporate leadership oversight before being brought to the committee in future.
2. It was explained that the council often brought in external experts for major projects, but the issue in this case was that the experts’ findings were not shared with internal audit while both reviews were happening. The lack of coordination led to differing assurance opinions. A key lesson was to improve timely information sharing with internal auditors whenever expert reviews were underway.
3. The DOF explained that despite the limited assurance rating with regards to council tax report, she did not believe there were significant risks within council tax processes. A 98% collection rate, one of the highest nationally was highlighted and consistent surpluses reported in the collection fund. Whilst some improvements were planned, including reviewing single person discounts and strengthening bank reconciliations, these formed part of the normal cyclical work rather than indicators of significant issues. With the existing performance and controls in place she was not sure the limited assurance rating was warranted.
4. The DOF confirmed that the council actively worked to return historic council tax credits to residents but often struggled to trace people who had moved or changed bank accounts. These credits were kept safely on the accounts until confirmed. Although the total amount spanned decades, it represented only a tiny fraction of the amount collected annually.