DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix B – Service Description

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix B – Service Description PROTECT - COMMERCIAL Action Fraud – Service Operating Audit Contract Appendix B – Service Description APPENDIX B SERVICE DESCRIPTION CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 2. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................. 2 3. BACKGROUND TO THE AUTHORITY ..................................................................... 3 4. BACKGROUND TO REQUIREMENT/OVERVIEW OF REQUIREMENT ................... 3 5. SCOPE OF REQUIREMENT ..................................................................................... 3 6. SERVICE LEVELS AND PERFORMANCE ............................................................... 5 7. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 5 8. LOCATION ................................................................................................................ 5 9. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................... 5 PROTECT - COMMERCIAL Page 1 of 5http://www.ogcbuyingsolutions.gov.uk/ PROTECT - COMMERCIAL Action Fraud – Service Operating Audit Contract Appendix B – Service Description 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The National Fraud Authority (NFA) is an executive agency of the Home Office. Set up in 2008, it leads and coordinates the fight to reduce fraud affecting: individuals and public, private (including SME`s) and third sector organisations. As part of this delivery, the NFA runs Action Fraud, the national fraud and internet crime reporting centre, which is a first of its kind police service enabling members of the public and businesses to report fraud online or by phone and to get prevention advice. Action Fraud works with partners in law enforcement - the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), run by the City of London Police - to make sure fraud reports reach the right place. With Action Fraud now expanding its remit to take all non-emergency reports of fraud and internet crime that would previously have been reported to the police, the time is appropriate to audit the service being delivered across the online and contact centre channels, and plan for service enhancements based on a detailed understanding of customer needs. 2. PURPOSE 2.1 When the Action Fraud service was established in 2009, much effort was taken to ensure that customers provided highly detailed fraud reports to satisfy police crime recording requirements. This had the advantage of collecting up-front all information that might benefit NFIB analysis and police investigation, and was an entirely appropriate response to establishing the legitimacy of a new reporting service. Now that Action Fraud has been operational for three years, the timing is right to review how delivery of the service is keeping up with evolving customer expectations, to ensure it provides the correct level of support and increased opportunity to report in the most time-efficient and cost-effective way. The service must be audited as a whole, looking at all channels of engagement both on- and offline. It is important to understand whether the service offers an accessible, efficient and suitable product, including studying what causes Action Fraud to struggle to attract a greater amount of reports online. Overall purpose of the procurement: • To gain a full understanding of Action Fraud‟s different customer types in order to ensure that the support service and reporting function meets their needs. • To ensure that Action Fraud remains customer-oriented and able to provide a modern, flexible and efficient crime reporting service, it is important to learn the lessons from others in the wider on- and offline marketplace. • Evaluating and auditing the customer journey will provide insight into the customer experience of Action Fraud, and the expectations and reality of reporting a fraud or internet crime. • Exploring customer expectations and experience will provide insight as to any areas for service improvement, as well as those areas where no change is necessary. • The findings and recommendations from this audit will inform work activity to redress the balance of online and contact centre reporting towards online reporting, and ensure ongoing cost effective use of resources. PROTECT - COMMERCIAL Page 2 of 5http://www.ogcbuyingsolutions.gov.uk/ PROTECT - COMMERCIAL Action Fraud – Service Operating Audit Contract Appendix B – Service Description 3. BACKGROUND TO THE AUTHORITY Action Fraud is the UK‟s national reporting centre for fraud and internet crime, which provides support to citizens and a reporting service for crime and crime related incidents through its web based and contact centre channels. Members of the public, the police, businesses and charities can report to Action Fraud online at www.actionfraud.police.uk or on the telephone. Action Fraud is run by the National Fraud Authority, an executive agency of the Home Office. 4. BACKGROUND TO REQUIREMENT/OVERVIEW OF REQUIREMENT 4.1 The Action Fraud service has been operational since October 2009. In that time over 116,000 crime reports have been received, with a total value of crime reported of over £1.11 billion. In November 2012, the contact centre saw its busiest month, with over 23,000 calls, and 100,000 visits to the website. By April 2013, all non-emergency fraud and internet crime reports that were previously processed by police forces will instead be taken by Action Fraud, before being sent on to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) for analysis and investigation. This centralisation of fraud reporting will free up valuable police resources and enhance the intelligence picture from around the country, enabling more fraud and internet crimes to be disrupted. With this expanded remit, many more individuals, businesses, charities and police officers will be contacting Action Fraud for advice and to report fraud and internet crime. Resources at the contact centre are being increased to handle the anticipated increase in calls. At the same time, and in line with the Cabinet Office „Digital by Default‟ objectives, Action Fraud is looking to increase the proportion of reports submitted via the online reporting tool on the website – aiming 50% of reports to be submitted online, but with current proportions significantly below this level. In addition, many people who start their report online choose to abandon it before completion. This audit will help us to address these issues with online reporting, while also taking stock of the service delivered by the contact centre and recommending any improvements to the service required to meet increasing customer demand. 5. SCOPE OF REQUIREMENT 5.1 The audit has been broken down into four key stages. NB. These stages could overlap and do not necessarily have to be approached consecutively. Stage 1 – Understanding Action Fraud customer types The first step in auditing the Action Fraud service will be to establish the types of customer that currently engage with Action Fraud. It is not the case that all current customers are victims of fraud or internet crime, so it will be important to establish the range of customers that engage with the service. This objective approach will help ensure decisions on updating or improving the service are based on a detailed understanding of customers and their needs. This applies to both the contact centre and the website. The key questions to answer at this stage are: Who is coming to Action Fraud and why? What are their needs? How did they find Action Fraud, and what are they looking to do? What proportion are victims of fraud / internet crime? PROTECT - COMMERCIAL Page 3 of 5http://www.ogcbuyingsolutions.gov.uk/ PROTECT - COMMERCIAL Action Fraud – Service Operating Audit Contract Appendix B – Service Description What other types of customer visit Action Fraud? What are they looking for? Who is not coming to Action Fraud? Is there a gap between the types of customer the service needs to reach and the customers actually arriving? With a full understanding of Action Fraud‟s different customer types we will be in a better position to ensure that the service and reporting function meets their needs. This work will help to ensure that any future enhancements to online and contact centre reporting have customer requirements built in from the outset. 5.2 Stage 2 – Understanding the on- and offline marketplace The Action Fraud reporting service provides a highly cost effective and customer- oriented route to provide information and report incidents of fraud or internet crime. There are numerous benefits of the service to the customer, not least of which the 24/7 availability of reporting through the online tool. This convenience of reporting, however, has not directly translated into increased proportions reporting through the online channel rather than the contact centre. This audit seeks to establish why this is the case, and recommend any necessary activity to redress this balance. The audit must also explore the wider online marketplace, to establish good practice on other websites or digital channels where lessons could be learned for the benefit of Action Fraud. It is useful to consider here the fact that Action Fraud customers are interacting online with other public sector and commercial organisations every day, and will inevitably draw comparisons between the service they receive. With online banking and shopping becoming ever more sophisticated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The UK Cyber Security Strategy: Landscape Review (Full Report)
    REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 890 SESSION 2012-13 12 FEBRUARY 2013 Cross-government The UK cyber security strategy: Landscape review Our vision is to help the nation spend wisely. We apply the unique perspective of public audit to help Parliament and government drive lasting improvement in public services. The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending for Parliament and is independent of government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Amyas Morse, is an Officer of the House of Commons and leads the NAO, which employs some 860 staff. The C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report to Parliament on whether departments and the bodies they fund have used their resources efficiently, effectively, and with economy. Our studies evaluate the value for money of public spending, nationally and locally. Our recommendations and reports on good practice help government improve public services, and our work led to audited savings of more than £1 billion in 2011. Cross-government The UK cyber security strategy: Landscape review Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 11 February 2013 This report has been prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 for presentation to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act Amyas Morse Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office 5 February 2013 HC 890 London: The Stationery Office £16.00 This landscape review describes government’s evolving approach to cyber security and describes the programme of work it has under way.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Office Procurement Notice
    Home Office Procurement Notice Small and Medium sized Enterprises: The Home Office is committed to supporting small medium enterprises (SMEs) cross government agenda and is actively contributing to the 25% aspiration. About Us: The Home Office is the lead government department for policies on immigration, passports, counter- terrorism, policing, drugs and crime. The Procurement Centre of Excellence (PCoE) provides a buying function for common non strategic goods and services across the Home Office Group. It has the value proposition to make it easier for people to buy from who we want them to, in the way we want them to, to deliver maximum value for money. The Home Office includes agencies, non-departmental public bodies and inspectorates. Our agencies cover UKBA, CRB, IPS and NFA whilst information regarding the NDPB‟s can be found on the Home Office website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/ The Home Office conducts its business in a fair, open and transparent manner. It deals with a multitude of local, national and global organisations - from those with just a few employees to those with many thousands. All suppliers to the Home Office are appointed in line with EU and National regulations relating to public sector procurement, following fair and open competition. Doing Business with the Home Office: The Home Office is obliged by law to maintain certain standards in the way it operates and these apply equally to its Suppliers. Before awarding a contract the Home Office will undertake certain checks to establish whether these standards are being met. More information on doing business with the Home Office may be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/procurement/doing-business/ COMMS 034C National Fraud Awareness Campaign -ONLINE 1.Background to the Requirement National Fraud Authority The National Fraud Authority (NFA) is an executive agency of the Home Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Crime Annual Strategic Assessment
    FOOD CRIME ANNUAL STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT A 2016 Baseline NATIONAL FOOD Scottish Food Crime & CRIME UNIT Incidents Unit This document is produced by the National Food Crime Unit on behalf of the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD . 3 THE UK FOOD CRIME UNITS . 4 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 5 An industry vulnerable to crime . 5 Taking the right approach . 6 Reporting gaps . 6 The challenge for the wider economy . 6 Leading the fight against food crime . 7 2 STRATEGIC CONTEXT . 8 2 1. Purpose and structure . 8 2.2 Defining food crime and government responsibilities . 9 2 .3 Information sources and limitations . 11 3 FOOD IN THE UK: SETTING THE SCENE . 16 3 1. Trade and international connectivity . 16 4 THE IMPACT OF FOOD CRIME . 18 4 .2 Consumer detriment . 18 4 .3 Industry detriment . 20 4 4. Detriment to wider UK interests . 20 5 LINKS BETWEEN FOOD CRIME AND OTHER CRIMINALITY . 22 6 THREAT ASSESSMENT BY COMMODITY . 25 6 1. Red meat . 25 6 .2 Poultry and eggs . 28 6 .3 Diversion of waste products . 29 6 4 . Fish . 30 6.5 Shellfish . 31 6 .6 Dairy products . 33 6 7. Animal feed . 34 6 8 . Alcohol . 35 6 .9 Olive oil . 37 6 10. Fruit and vegetables . 38 6 11. Herbs, spices and nut and seed powders . 40 6 12 . Rice . 41 6 13. Supplements and similar products . 41 1 FOOD CRIME ANNUAL STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT: A 2016 Baseline 7 CRIMINAL TECHNIQUES, METHODS AND ENABLERS . 45 7.1 Falsified or inaccurate documentation . 45 7 .2 Redirection of waste products and re-dating of stock .
    [Show full text]
  • Daylight Robbery
    Daylight Robbery Uncovering the true cost of public sector fraud in the age of COVID-19 By Richard Walton, Sophia Falkner and Benjamin Barnard Daylight Robbery Uncovering the true cost of public sector fraud in the age of COVID-19 By Richard Walton, Sophia Falkner and Benjamin Barnard Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development and retains copyright and full editorial control over all its written research. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Registered charity no: 1096300. Trustees Diana Berry, Alexander Downer, Pamela Dow, Andrew Feldman, David Harding, Patricia Hodgson, Greta Jones, Edward Lee, Charlotte Metcalf, David Ord, Roger Orf, Andrew Roberts, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, William Salomon, Peter Wall, Simon Wolfson, Nigel Wright. Daylight Robbery About the Authors Richard Walton served as a police officer in the Metropolitan Police in London for thirty years (1986-2016). A former Commander at New Scotland Yard, he was Head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) between 2011-2016. He is now a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange and a Distinguished Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
    [Show full text]
  • Time to Choose: an Inspection of the Police Response to Fraud
    Fraud: Time to Choose An inspection of the police response to fraud April 2019 © HMICFRS 2019 ISBN: 978-1-78655-784-1 www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................... 4 Summary ................................................................................................................... 6 Summary of findings ................................................................................................ 8 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 22 Areas for improvement .......................................................................................... 27 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 28 About our inspection ............................................................................................. 28 About fraud ........................................................................................................... 28 Context ................................................................................................................. 30 2. Strategy: How well designed is the strategic approach for tackling fraud? 37 The national strategic approach to tackling fraud ................................................. 37 How well understood is the fraud threat? .............................................................. 45 How is good
    [Show full text]
  • The Performance of the Home Office 2012-13
    DEPARTMENTAL OVERVIEW The performance of the Home Office 2012-13 DECEMBER 2013 Our vision is to help the nation spend wisely. Our public audit perspective helps Parliament hold government to account and improve public services. The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending for Parliament and is independent of government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Amyas Morse, is an Officer of the House of Commons and leads the NAO, which employs some 860 staff. The C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report to Parliament on whether departments and the bodies they fund have used their resources efficiently, effectively, and with economy. Our studies evaluate the value for money of public spending, nationally and locally. Our recommendations and reports on good practice help government improve public services, and our work led to audited savings of almost £1.2 billion in 2012. Contents Introduction 4 Part One About the Department 5 Part Two Recent NAO work on the Department 20 Appendix One The Home Office’s sponsored bodies at 1 April 2013 29 Appendix Two Results of the Civil Service People Survey 2012 30 Appendix Three Publications by the NAO on the Department since April 2012 32 Appendix Four Cross-government reports of relevance to the Department since April 2012 33 Links to external websites were valid at the time of publication of this report. The National Audit Office is not responsible for the future validity of the links. 4 Introduction The performance of the Home Office 2012-13 Introduction Aim and scope of this briefing 1 The primary purpose of this report is to provide the Home Affairs Select Committee with a summary of the Home Office’s activity and performance since September 2012, based primarily on published sources, including the Department’s own accounts and the work of the National Audit Office (NAO).
    [Show full text]
  • (2016) the Fraud 'Justice Systems': a Scoping Study On
    The Fraud ‘Justice Systems’: A Scoping Study on the Civil, Regulatory and Private Paths to ‘Justice’ for Fraudsters Main Report November 2016 Professor Mark Button, Dr David Shepherd and Dean Blackbourn THE FRAUD JUSTICE SYSTEMS Table of Contents Page Number Table of Acronyms 3 1. Introduction 5 2. The Extent of Non-Criminal Justice for Fraud 12 3. Regulatory Justice 26 4. Contempt of Court 51 5. Fraudster Registers 57 6. Emerging Themes, Conclusions and Recommendations 95 7. Methods Used 103 8. References 108 9. Appendix 114 Page 2 THE FRAUD JUSTICE SYSTEMS Table Acronyms ACCA – Association of Chartered Certified Accountants ASA – Advertising Standards Authority BSB – Bar Standards Board BTAS – Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service CAA - Civil Aviation Authority CCW – Care Council for Wales CIMA – Chartered Institute of Management Accountants CPS – Crown Prosecution Service CIPFA – Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy DBS - Disclosure and Barring Service DWP – Department for Work and Pensions FCA – Financial Conduct Authority FFA – Financial Fraud Action FSA – Financial Services Authority GC – Gambling Commission GLA – Gangmasters Licensing Authority GMC – General Medical Council HCPC – Healthcare Professions Council HMG – Her Majesty’s Government HMRC – Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs ICAEW – Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales IFED – Insurance Fraud Enforcement Directorate IFR – Insurance Fraud Register Page 3 THE FRAUD JUSTICE SYSTEMS MCA – Maritime and Coastguard Agency MPTS – Medical Practitioners
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Fraud Together
    Fighting Fraud Together The strategic plan to reduce fraud Fighting Fraud Together 2 The strategic plan to reduce fraud Contents Collective statement of intent 4 Introduction 6 Section 1: The fraud challenge 9 The criminal threat 9 The future trajectory of the threat 11 Behaviours and attitudes 12 The damage caused by fraud 13 Strengths and weaknesses of our response 14 Section 2: Strategic direction 17 Our ambition 17 Strategic objectives 17 Priorities 18 Section 3: Strategic delivery 22 3 Fighting Fraud Together Collective statement of intent We recognise the benefits of working together to tackle a crime that affects us all and collectively costs us £38bn per annum. The criminals who attack us do not operate in silos and neither should we. Where we have worked together, we have delivered some significant results but there is much more that could be done. Fighting Fraud Together gives us a fresh impetus to make sure that this work is done. We, the organisations which are part of Fighting Fraud Together will: • Continue with measures to prevent, detect, disrupt and punish fraudsters both within our sectors and by working collaboratively across sectors, sharing intelligence, information and good practice • Commit to a new set of cross-cutting initiatives to provide fresh impetus in our fight against fraud • Widen our partnership working to involve other sectors who are less advanced in their approach to fighting fraud • Strengthen the institutional arrangements for co-ordinating our work • Ensure that our work is informed by the best intelligence
    [Show full text]
  • National Statistician's Review of Crime Statistics
    National Statistician’s Review of Crime Statistics: England and Wales June 2011 The National Statistician The National Statistician – a statutory office holder – is also the Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority Board and the Board’s principal adviser on: • the quality of official statistics • good practice in relation to official statistics, and • the comprehensiveness of official statistics. She is also the Head of the Government Statistical Service (GSS) which is a network of professional statisticians and their staff operating both within the Office for National Statistics and across more than 30 other government departments and agencies. Enquiries For enquiries about the content of this report please contact Debra Prestwood at [email protected] or telephone 0845 601 3034. Media contact: Luke Croydon: 020 7592 8635 Emergency on-call: 07867 906553 E-mail [email protected] © Crown Copyright 2011 The text in this document may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or email: [email protected] Contents Foreword 2 Chapter 1. Executive summary 3 Chapter 2. Recommendations 4 Chapter 3. Introduction 5 Chapter 4. Published crime statistics: issues and the way forward 7 Chapter 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report and Accounts 2013-14 Annual Report and Accounts 2013-14 (For the Year Ended 31 March 2014)
    Home Office Annual Report and Accounts 2013-14 Annual Report and Home Office Annual Report and Accounts 2013-14 (For the year ended 31 March 2014) HC 21 Annual Report and Accounts 2013-14 (For the year ended 31 March 2014) Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 Annual Report presented to the House of Commons by Command of Her Majesty Annual Report and Accounts presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 17 June 2014 HC 21 This is part of a series of departmental publications which, along with the Main Estimates 2014-15 and the document Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 2014, present the Government’s outturn for 2013-14 and planned expenditure for 2014-15. © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.2. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ or email [email protected] Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Direct Communications Unit, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF. Telephone: 020 7035 4848 (09:00-17:00 Mon-Fri) Fax: 020 7035 4745 Print ISBN 9781474105477 Web ISBN 9781474105484 Printed in the UK by the Williams
    [Show full text]
  • In the Implementation Processes for National Anti-Fraud Strategies at the Local Level: Aims, Ownership, and Impact
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Online Research @ Cardiff European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-019-09422-6 Exploring the ‘Shadows’ in the Implementation Processes for National Anti-fraud Strategies at the Local Level: Aims, Ownership, and Impact Michael Levi1 & Alan Doig2 # The Author(s) 2019 Abstract This article studies the development and implementation of a nationally drafted strategy for fraud in local government in England. The purpose, relevant to other countries which also face (or evade) problems of policy outreach, is to consider what is required to achieve effective implementation through three broad aspects: aims, ownership, and impact. There is a particular focus on the assessment of the strategy implementation process and what mechanisms translate strategies into effective delivery or what other factors may subvert that delivery. The empirical research draws on the UK government’s 2006 policy review on fraud and the consequential changes between then and 2019, including a number of fraud strategies initiated by the United Kingdom central government. To review implementation in practice, it focuses on the 2011 local government strategy and uses a local-level case study to assess issues concerning aims, ownership, and impact, as well as the effect of other nationally determined policies and agendas. It concludes that without an ‘owned’ strategy implementation process as a whole, national strategies concerning the prevention and policing of fraud in England in the twenty-first century have had—and continue to have—modest impact on practice on the ground at the local level.
    [Show full text]
  • National Fraud Initiative Report 2014
    National Fraud Initiative National Report June 2014 This document is EMBARGOED until 00:01 Thursday 12 June 2014 The Audit Commission’s role is to protect the public purse. We do this by appointing auditors to a range of local public bodies in England. We set the standards we expect auditors to meet and oversee their work. Our aim is to secure high-quality audits at the best price possible. We use information from auditors and published data to provide authoritative, evidence-based analysis. This helps local public services to learn from one another and manage the financial challenges they face. We also compare data across the public sector to identify where services could be open to abuse and help organisations fight fraud. Contents Summary ........................................................................................................... 2 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 5 What the Audit Commission will do .............................................................. 6 What the Cabinet Office will do .................................................................... 6 Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2: The NFI ............................................................................................ 8 Chapter 3: The NFI across the UK ................................................................. 12 Chapter 4: Results of the NFI in England .....................................................
    [Show full text]