More than £8,000 has been fraudulently claimed by county council staff members, resulting in police investigations and dismissals.

The ‘Annual Internal Audit Conclusion 2024-2025’ report has revealed that at the end of 2023/24, several investigations were open about fraud committed by Hampshire County Council staff members.

These are related to the loss of £1,200 in cash from an educational setting, which was not reported by the council, resulting in a police referral and the dismissal of the employee.

The second case involved fraudulent travel and expense claims, as well as the personal use of hired vehicles by an employee.

According to the council, this employee defrauded £5,500. After the investigation, the employee was dismissed.

However, in this case, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute the person involved.

Two investigations were also carried out into the use of procurement cards by employees. These actions were found not to be fraudulent but were a consequence of poor record-keeping.

Another case about an employee making overtime claims of £1,400 resulted in a disciplinary process following the investigation.

As a consequence, the employee is no longer employed by the local authority.

A spokesperson for Hampshire County Council said: “We have robust and well-established processes in place to identify and investigate any instances of suspected fraud by staff.

“These procedures ensure that all cases are examined thoroughly, in line with our commitment to transparency and accountability.

“Where fraud is identified, appropriate action is taken quickly and in accordance with our internal policies and legal obligations, with matters referred to the Police where required.

“While the number of cases remains extremely low, each is treated with the utmost seriousness to ensure appropriate measures are taken to prevent recurrence.”

Two additional investigations were initiated this year, and one has now concluded. The results of this inquiry revealed procurement irregularities at a school due to insufficient declarations of interest.

The other case was evaluated as an invoicing error rather than fraud, with ongoing work to provide advice on a new system to reduce the risk of similar mistakes in the future.