The recent case of Bryn Howells, who was found guilty of fraud after working four council jobs at once, is more than just a shocking headline. It’s a powerful reminder of just how fragile trust can be in public sector employment and why we need to take workforce screening and monitoring more seriously.
And while cases like this are rare, they’re not as isolated as we’d like to think. The way people work has changed. Remote and hybrid roles, a cost-of-living crisis and digital hiring practices have all opened the door to what we call “polygamous working”: the act of holding multiple jobs without declaring them. When that crosses the line into deception, as it clearly did here, it’s not just a contract breach. It becomes fraud, and the consequences for public trust, taxpayer funds and internal teams are significant.
Let’s be clear: having more than one job isn’t inherently wrong. Many people need to supplement their income, especially in today’s economic climate. But the line is crossed when that work isn’t disclosed, when it impacts performance, or when public funds are being used to support a role that someone isn’t truly fulfilling. Mr. Howells didn’t just take on extra work. He actively misled multiple councils, failed to disclose his roles and fabricated availability. And, crucially, the system didn’t catch it in time.
Unfortunately, we can’t change what’s already happened in this case but we can learn from it. As workforce partners to local authorities, I believe it’s time to stop thinking about screening as a tick-box exercise done at the point of hire. The reality is that employment screening, particularly in the public sector, needs to become a continuous, intelligent process. Why? Because situations change. People take on new responsibilities, financial pressures mount, roles evolve. If we only screen once, we lose visibility on emerging risks and miss the opportunity to support people before problems arise.
Regular rescreening doesn’t have to be invasive or burdensome. Done well, and with proper employee consent, it becomes a way to protect both employer and employee. For example, monitoring for undeclared earnings or checking for unusual overlaps in employment history can flag potential concerns early before they spiral into something more damaging. More importantly, it gives managers a chance to have the right conversations at the right time: “Are you okay? Are you overworked? Do you need support?”
In local government, where public money is on the line and resources are already stretched thin, this matters more than ever. Councils are under pressure to fill skills gaps, reduce agency spend and deliver services at pace. But when governance slips, even slightly, it opens the door to cases like this. Not only do they damage the council’s reputation, but they also chip away at public confidence in how taxpayer money is managed.
Of course, technology has a role to play. At Matrix, we work with a range of digital tools to help identify discrepancies across multiple employers. Payroll overlaps, undeclared income or irregular working patterns can all be flagged early but it takes commitment to put these systems in place and use them effectively.
Ultimately, the Bryn Howells case is not just about fraud. It’s about blind spots. It’s about how quickly those blind spots can become liabilities when screening is static and fragmented. And it’s about how the public sector, more than most, needs to show that trust is earned, and that integrity is monitored, not assumed.
Now is the time to learn, adapt and invest in ongoing screening that protects not just the organisation, but the people it serves.
