CIS test checks

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #21124
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Hi there,

    I’m not kidding, I’ve spent more time on this than I have real work over the last fortnight.

    Me and my cohorts are the checking officers. One of the numerous issues we have is test checking CIS access by Fraud Officers. They are reluctant to give details of their investigations in order to justify that their CIS access was for a legitimate business purpose. I can understand this.

    However, we are reluctant to sign these test checks off when we are told that the reason for access was “Fraud”. We have no evidence that there was a “legitimate business purpose”. The Fraud Manager has said that she will verify that there was a “legitimate business purpose” which is all very well but she is not counter-signing the LAST 1; we are.

    It’s a “chicken and egg” situation and it’s making my head hurt. One solution would be to give fraud their own checking officer, but that breaks down the “chinese walls” of an independant test check.

    Has anyone else come across this yet?

    Darren

    #4391
    Darren W
    Participant

    I am the checking officer for our LA and havd not come across this situation yet. Though I would not be happy signing to say something was for a legitimate business purpose without proof of it myself. The fraud manager might say it is, but how would you know that they are not involved in any fraud that might be going on?

    The only way around it I can see is to give them a checking officer of their own.

    #4392
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I’d love to, but I suspect that LAST may not be happy about it. I’m trying to check with them.

    #4393
    Darren W
    Participant

    [quote:acd44a576a=”Darren Spicer”]I’d love to, but I suspect that LAST may not be happy about it. I’m trying to check with them.[/quote:acd44a576a]

    I would imagine that if the checking officer is not also making inquires then there should not be a problem.

    #4394
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Darren (Spicer): For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t sign off something on that basis either.

    Regards

    #4395
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Disagree entirely with giving then seperate checking officer.
    What is their problem? Do they not trust colleagues?

    If they tried to argue that here, then I feel I would have no choice but to have their access immediatly withdrawn.

    However, I feel it is enough for them to say that there is a fraud investigation in place and provide minimal evidence of that, without going into all details. I am with them on that, and can see no problem in checking this off. After all, we have to have a bit of trust both ways! 8)

    #4396
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Why are your Fraud officers reluctant to give details?

    #4397
    Darren
    Participant

    Afternoon All,

    I’m our LA’s Checking Officer and I’m thinking what is it with Checking Officers all being called Darren???

    I’m with Jon on this one, I’m ok with signing off Test Checks from our Fraud Unit, as long as I have minimal sufficient docs, which they should have as part of their investigation paperwork.

    I have gone down the line of, the prevention of Fraud is legitimate government business, protecting public funds etc etc. I mark on the LAST 1 that this check is from Fraud and lock them away separately form the other LAST 1’s I sign off, as an extra precaution.

    Thanks

    #4398
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah……

    I’m getting [i:e66e695819]nothing [/i:e66e695819]from fraud apart from the fraud manager’s assurance that everything’s okay. While I don’t distrust the fraud manager’s word on it (I’m too scared! 😆 ), I’m darn sure that LAST won’t accept that as evidence.

    Our Fraud Team’s concern is that sensitive information that may prejudice investigations may get out. That’s not unreasonable. But, as Jon said, don’t they trust us? I guess not.

    It’s escalated into the realms of management now so it’s bound to be sorted out to everyone’s satisfaction 😈

    Cheers y’all

    #4399
    Daz Webb
    Participant

    I’m not a ‘Checking Officer’ but one of our Authorities ‘Designated Users’, so we basically control who does and doesn’t have access to the CIS system.

    Regards the Fraud Officers being test checked, I was under the impression that it is a requirement of the DWP/LAST that where a test check has occurred the appropriate ‘evidence’ is supplied to support why the user was accessing a specific record on the system.

    Having your Fraud Officers just state it is for ‘Fraud’ would surely not be acceptable by the DWP/LAST.

    I cannot remember this occuring at our Authority as yet with any of our Fraud Team, and we have been on CIS since mid July ’06 and all of our Fraud Officers (5 staff) have access to CIS,and I’m sure they would provide the necessary evidence required to support their test checks, if needed.

    I’d be inclined to seek guidance from DWP/LAST as to what iformation ‘has’ to be supplied to support a test check where a fraud investigation is ongoing. If they reply and say that they should follow the same rules as all other staff regards test checks, if they still don’t comply, I would look at removing CIS access for your Fraud Team and have them submit requests much like staff who don’t have CIS access do.

    #4400
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I’ve got to go back to Darren (Spicer’s) comment concerning the fraud officers at his LA
    “Our Fraud Team’s concern is that sensitive information that may prejudice investigations may get out. That’s not unreasonable”

    I’m sorry but I think this is completely unreasonable. When we are using someone else’s system then we conform to their rules – or don’t use it!! Fraud Officers at the DWP, I am told locally, have no problems supplying this evidence to checking officers.
    So I have to ask myself “What makes your Fraud Team so precious?” :15:
    Answer – nothing. 😉
    I feel I would have to state “you provide an audit trail with supporting docs – minimum needed to prove there is a fraud investigation going on – or you get NO ACCESS as you are not complying with the basics of the scheme. No problem – very simple.
    If they refuse – simply revoke their access. I would not want to do this as I see CIS as a very useful anti-fraud tool, but they gotta play by the rules.

    What do they think happens to this information, anyway? It is kept securely at our office and no-one else other than the checking officer has access. As an aside, I would be really worried if the Fraud team here started operating in this quasi-autonomous “we can do what we like” mode. It seems they want carte blanche – which you are not able to give them.
    Do they not see themselves as a part of the Benefits service? 8)

    #4401
    karent
    Participant

    our 2 Investigations Officers are our Checking Officers for two reasons;

    1) they very very rarely need to access CIS as they are investigating based on what’s been declared or not declared etc on a claim, not actually assessing & putting them into payment which is where the vast majority of CIS access is required.

    2) by making the Investigations Officers the Checking Officers, it gives that slight slant to all the Assistants that they are being monitored on access and that all test checks will be ‘investigated’. I’m abhorred by Darren Spicer’s posts and agree entirely that you should absolutely refuse to put your name to any test check sign offs that you aren’t comfortable with

    Get it sorted before CIS access is revoked for your whole LA

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.