Fraud is an unavoidable risk in any large, complex organisation—especially those handling billions in public money. Across the UK, councils face relentless pressure to deliver services efficiently while managing increasingly sophisticated attempts at deception, from fraudulent housing claims to procurement scams. But while public concern about local authority fraud is growing, not all councils are standing still.

Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) offers a case study on how to take fraud seriously—quietly, professionally, and effectively.

National Context: The Numbers Behind the Concern

The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)’s national fraud tracker estimated local government fraud losses at £239 million for the 2019/20 financial year. Council tax fraud remains the most frequent, while housing and procurement frauds are typically the highest in value. Austerity-era staff reductions and growing digital vulnerabilities have left some councils struggling to monitor public funds with sufficient rigour.

Public frustration is understandable, especially when headlines emerge about councils accidentally paying deceased care recipients or hundreds of thousands being siphoned off through internal card misuse. However, rather than waiting for a crisis, some authorities have chosen to act proactively.

Lincolnshire’s Approach: Transparency, Tools, and Tenacity

LCC has quietly built one of the more robust anti-fraud regimes in the country. Over the past decade, it has saved taxpayers £7.7 million through proactive fraud detection and deterrence. These efforts include:

  • Targeted council tax reviews: A 75,000-household audit uncovered £1.3 million in wrongly claimed discounts, with over 3,400 cases corrected and 500 enforcement actions taken
  • Rapid threat response: In 2019/20, the Council prevented a £1.56 million loss through swift action on a bank mandate fraud
  • Cross-sector data collaboration: Through the National Fraud Initiative, Lincolnshire recovered £312,000 by matching public sector data to spot inconsistencies

A Culture of Accountability

Fraud risks in Lincolnshire reflect national patterns—revenue fraud, adult social care manipulation, procurement irregularities, school fund misuse—but the Council has institutionalised its defences:

  • A zero-tolerance policy embedded in its constitution;
  • An independent counter-fraud team reporting directly to internal audit;
  • Regular fraud risk assessments, payroll audits, and proactive procurement card reviews;
  • Whistleblowing protocols that protect staff and citizens who come forward

As of late 2024, the Council was investigating multiple cases across directorates, with all referrals being logged, triaged, and actioned. This reflects not a system out of control—but one actively policing itself.

Pre-Empting Misconceptions

Suppose someone were to skim through a council’s fraud statistics without understanding the context. In that case, they might leap to the conclusion that fraud is rampant and uncontrolled. However, high referral numbers often reflect healthy internal reporting systems rather than systemic rot. Similarly, the absence of massive recoveries in a short period can indicate successful deterrence and prevention, not a lack of vigilance.

In short, if you’re not finding fraud, you’re probably not looking for it.

Lincolnshire’s approach reflects the opposite: it looks, it acts, and it documents every step. That may not make for sensational headlines—but it does safeguard public money.

Audit Confirms Robust Control and Fraud Response

The Council’s most recent 2024/25 Annual Audit Opinion, issued in June 2025, provides independent assurance that LCC’s governance, risk management, and internal controls are “adequate” and working effectively in practice. This conclusion, based on extensive testing and risk-led audits, is crucial in light of growing public concern nationally. Notably:

  • No “critical” fraud risk areas were identified across the Council.
  • The internal audit team delivered 100% of their plan, with high acceptance of all recommendations.
  • Only three areas of limited assurance were identified in council operations (compliance with the Transparency Code, recording of contract awards, and oversight of procurement cards), with management already implementing corrective actions.
  • A further 13 proactive fraud control reviews were completed to stress-test vulnerabilities.
  • LCC’s Fraud Risk Register shows zero critical risks and a declining number of high-risk areas thanks to control improvements.

Importantly, a 333% increase in fraud referrals was not interpreted as evidence of rising fraud but instead seen as a healthy sign of staff vigilance and confidence in reporting processes.

Conclusion: What Good Governance Looks Like

Fraud is real, evolving, and serious—but it is not unmanageable. The primary difference between a crisis and a contained risk lies in governance. Lincolnshire’s proactive, transparent, and structured approach to fraud provides a template for other councils—and a firm pre-emptive answer to any who might seek to score political points by suggesting otherwise.