Agenda item

The HoA updated the Committee. The report covered 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022.

The Counter Fraud team was divided into two sections: one dealing with fraud relating to the Council’s housing stock whilst the other section dealt with all non-housing related fraud. The HoA disclosed that there had been an increase in referrals to the Counter Fraud Team and the number of cases accepted had also increased. This was, in part, due to an expansion in resources. The HoA was unable to discuss the specifics of referrals received due to legal reasons.

The first criminal prosecution, since the direct funding of a solicitor to assist the Counter Fraud Team in their casework, had taken place. The case related to a tenant who was subletting a two-bedroom council property; the Counter Fraud Team discovered that the tenant was living in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, and had never actually moved into the property.

The Chair asked what controls were in place to detect tenants who were subletting a council property. The HoA explained that the Council undertook publicity campaigns to educate the public on the effects of subletting, emphasising that it was not a victimless crime and that the Council encouraged whistleblowing. The HoA noted that, in relation to the tenant who was living in Wakefield, a member of the local community reported their suspicions to the Council.

In addition to this, the Counter Fraud team used data matching software to compare tenancy records with other information held by the Council such as council tax records. Where these did not match, a preliminary investigation would be undertaken. A risk based proactive approach to fraud was taken. The HoA explained that properties in certain areas, such as those near railway stations, were more likely to be sublet as they could command a rent much higher than the Council charged.

The Committee noted that this would not address those tenants who sublet part of their property. The HoA responded that there were circumstances where tenants could sublet part of their property, where the tenancy agreement permits it. Agencies undertook checks to ensure that council properties were not let, and the HoA disclosed that agencies had previously notified the Council of attempts by tenants to sublet their home.

In response to questioning regarding Council data, the HoA explained that the Counter Fraud team focused on investigating subletting and other tenancy-related fraud. Where other types of fraud were suspected, such as benefit fraud, the relevant party, such as the Department of Work and Pensions, would be informed.

The HoA clarified that the person who occupied a sub-let property was not committing a crime and may not be aware that the property was being sub-let. Criminal responsibility rested with the tenant who had sublet their council property. The HoA acknowledged that, when the Council repossessed a sub-let property, it could result in the occupier losing their home and could lead to the occupier being homeless. However, the Council would address potential issues based on the specifics of the case and any legal requirements.

Following further questioning, the HoA disclosed that the Council was also participated in the National Fraud Initiative which involved data matching with other local authorities. There was also a London Borough Fraud Investigators Group which shared information on strategies to detect fraud and incidences of fraud.

Overall, six properties were recovered from tenants who were not entitled to them, saving the Council circa £500k in rental payments and enabling the Council to rent these properties to tenants who were entitled to them.

The Committee asked that a report be presented outlining how the Council dealt with occupants of sub-let properties.

The Committee noted the update.