DUDLEY Council is facing questions about how it has lost £35,000 worth of IT equipment issued to staff members.

The unaccounted-for kit includes 89 mobile phones, 29 laptop computers, five tablet devices and even a Nikon digital camera.

The equipment was acquired by the council between January 2020 and August 2023 and issued to staff who have now left the authority’s employment.

The council cannot now identify the whereabouts of the kit which left one concerned councillor demanding answers.

Cllr Jackie Cowell said: “I find it very worrying, we need to tighten up procedures. Given the current financial situation we can do a lot with £35,000.

“I’m not too sure whether it’s gone missing or they don’t know where it is, the council has got to have a much stronger focus on this sort of thing.

“It begs the question: what are our directors and senior managers doing? 

“A lot of staff log into council systems, if they don’t know where it is that raises issues around access to their systems.”

Dudley Council pointed out £35,000 was the replacement market value of the equipment not the residual value which it believed would be much lower.

Councillor Phil Atkins, Dudley's cabinet member for corporate strategy, said: “The council has a clear process in place for equipment to be returned once employment ends. In the vast majority of cases this happens.

“In the instances where it doesn’t, we rigorously follow up with individuals to work to get the property back.

“Our debtor’s team continues to pursue those with any outstanding items.”

A council spokesperson added: “We fully acknowledge the significance of averting preventable losses. 

“We are dedicated to enhancing our inventory management systems and implementing tighter controls over equipment issuance and returns. 

“Our commitment includes reviewing our practices and storage arrangements to prevent similar incidents in the future.”

Cllr Cowell said: “They are saying that some may have been transferred to other staff without it being logged with IT, and I think that is a reasonable conclusion but that most likely doesn’t account for all of it and even if it does,  it is demonstrative of very poor control.”