A council has admitted it blundered by including a non-existent executive, on £140,000-£150,000, in a draft of its accounts last year.
Rochdale Council also over-estimated its fixed assets by £10million, the Audit Commission said.
The council said the mistakes had been corrected at an early stage and had not affected its finances.
But opposition leaders branded the errors 'incredible' and called for action to be taken.
The mistakes were picked up by an auditor in the 2008/09 accounts.
They come just one year after the council came under fire for having paid £100,000 too much to United Utilities.
The Audit Commission, in its annual letter to the town hall, said: “Our audit identified some errors within the council's financial statements and these were corrected prior to issuing audit opinion.
“The main error identified during the audit concerned the section of the accounts dealing with officers' pay.
“An additional member of staff was included incorrectly in the top salary band. It is important that the relevant note to the accounts is correctly stated given the sensitive nature of information about the pay of senior staff.”
Ashley Dearnley, leader of the Conservative opposition group on the council, said: “It is totally unacceptable to count pay for a senior officer who does not exist.
Laughable
“If it were not so serious it would be laughable, but at a time when the council is facing serious financial difficulties we all need to have confidence in the council's finances, this type of inept management must be dealt with.
“It is vital that action is taken.”
A spokesman for Rochdale council said: “The council's financial statements are produced in 60 days following a lengthy and demanding process.
“There are key internal controls within the financial systems and procedures implemented which ensure errors or omissions are identified and corrected in a timely fashion.
“An error in the fixed asset register was identified and highlighted by council staff before the commencement of the audit and the statements were amended.
“The 2008/09 key financial statements - balance sheet, income and expenditure account - did not contain any material errors or omissions.
“The Audit Commission acknowledged the good working papers maintained by the council.
“There were however changes to the notes of the accounts which do not impact on the statements themselves.
“The notes were produced on the information available at the time of completion with assurance checks undertaken, however additional information obtained during the audit required the note to be updated.”
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 21 and replies | View All
Barney Gumball LLB Hons (02/02/2010 at 10:27)
Buzz Killington, Somewhere over the rainbow (02/02/2010 at 10:47)
Angie33 , Manchester (02/02/2010 at 10:54)
Bobby the Builder, Rochdale (02/02/2010 at 11:48)
I am sure there is more 'creative accounting' to find if you keep looking.
This is an important issue of public interest - keep digging.
Perhaps see how much employment agencies have been paid for senior recruitment- on an ongoing basis. Money straight out of the council tax budget.
Old folks homes are closing, roads are full of potholes and the wheels are falling off Rochdale's regeneration - yet look at the pay rates. Jobs for the Boys!
Everyone paid over £60,000 a year in Rochdale Council, Impact Partnership and the RDA must be fully accountable for the public money they receive. FULL acountability of pay and performance.
NordenBloke, Norden (02/02/2010 at 12:30)
bluemanc1309, rochdale (02/02/2010 at 12:51)
fraud
PW, Manchester (02/02/2010 at 13:08)
J. Peasmold Gruntfuttock, Peasmouldia (02/02/2010 at 13:12)
KevinK (02/02/2010 at 14:00)
Jay B, oldham (02/02/2010 at 15:41)
R Marcus (02/02/2010 at 16:01)
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (02/02/2010 at 16:03)
Henrys Dog, Rochdale (02/02/2010 at 16:25)
RMBC are a disgrace and a complete waste of space.
jemma, rochdale (02/02/2010 at 18:55)
So what is it the parliment rip us off so the council thinks itll have a go too.
Personally i would like to see the councils response not get out claws or excuse to why this has happened and how they could rip us off while were all struggling to pay bills and generally live and still have the cheek to put our taxes up.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT
STREETSHACK, RED BROOK (02/02/2010 at 21:54)
It's the financial skeletons in the cupboards and the spooks running the finances who need exorcising in the next Local Election with a cross through the appropriate box...and we don't mean Black Box Two either !!
Peter Rochdale, Rochdale (03/02/2010 at 12:57)
James Allan Whitehead (03/02/2010 at 13:05)
Will the phantom please take one step forward and be recognised. Or should we just sack some one who made a mistake?. It will be blamed on computer error, no doubt. It brings to mind if you have never made a mistake, you have never made anything
Fiddler's elbow, Rochdale (03/02/2010 at 14:00)
The problem for this is where the buck stops. At the top with the senior executives who are paid well over £100,000 a year of OUR money.
That whay they mean by an executive decision.
This is not the fault of ordinary, hard working council staff - the ones who face crippling pay and grading reviews whilst these stupid mistakes keep happening.
NEVERINDOUBT, EU (04/02/2010 at 10:29)
J smith (04/02/2010 at 15:39)
Derek Shannon (09/02/2010 at 14:18)
Talk about a non-story: someone made a msitake but corrected it before it could affect anything of significaance - except of course to give local anonymities an excuse to post here (present company included).
I made a mistake this morning in a report, and typed "early" when I should have typed "yearly". I corrected it before I sent it out, but if the Observer wants to run a feature on that as well...