Social Housing Fraud Project Mark Henderson Director of Housing Wolverhampton Homes
The Beginning – customer driven
The Beginning – customer driven Customers told us we didn’t always know who was living in our properties They said we were allocating properties, then turning a blind eye to who was living there or what was going on Customers complained inactivity with previous reports of tenancy fraud
The Beginning
Aims of project Establish correct occupancy Investigate any irregularities Collaborate with partners – locally & wider Take necessary enforcement action Return property back to its intended use Relieve pressure on housing register Increase customer confidence in process
5 Key Steps Detect Punish Prevent Deter Correct
The Typical Fraudster?
The Typical Fraudster? Doesn’t exist - there is no such thing Isn’t the stereotypical young person keeping a tenancy to use as a ‘Giro drop’ Is just as likely to be an outwardly respectable member of the community
The Typical Fraudster?
What to expect Investigating isn’t for the faint -hearted It’s exhausting, frustrating and exhilarating, all rolled into one Basic information required is: Is it happening? Who is doing it? How and why are they doing it? (their motive)
Project Goes From Strength to Strength 170 properties have been recovered At any one time we have somewhere in the region of 50 open fraud cases being investigated Additional funding from DCLG, Fraud team has expanded to include LEAP apprentices as well as experienced investigators
Properties Recovered in Wolverhampton 13% of perpetrators were under the age of 25 14% of perpetrators were over the age of 45 20 perpetrators were over the age of 65
Case Study 1 Report one of our tenants was not living in the property further allegation was that they had never lived there System information checks showed at some point in the past the tenant had given us a contact telephone number which was not a local landline number Investigations revealed the telephone number was registered to an address in another part of the UK, located miles away from Wolverhampton
Case Study 1 (cont.) Contact was made with the local council in that area who advised The tenant was very well known in the area The tenant was a local parish councillor A very active member of the local community Evidence suggested he had lived in the area for over 10 years with his wife in a privately owned property in an affluent area
Case Study 1 (cont.) Our records revealed that previous reports had been received over a period of several years during a previous investigation the tenant claimed he lived a reclusive lifestyle refused to open the door to unannounced visitors but claimed to be at home when we visited claimed he had a phobia of window envelopes which was why he never responded to any of our letters said he only left the property at night-time when there was no-one around, which was why neighbours never saw him
Case Study 1 (cont.) The tenant was interviewed and continued with the pretence of living like a hermit in our property and refused to terminate the tenancy Evidence of his extensive activities elsewhere was gathered and possession proceedings issued Following several court hearings he decided to terminate the tenancy Property re-let to applicant in genuine need
Case Study 2 Report received That one of our homes was being sublet System checks showed The legal tenant was a middle-aged female with 3 children Investigations revealed The legal tenant was living with her partner in a private property whilst subletting her Council home That she had supplied the sub-tenant with a tenancy agreement and was charging £100 per week rent for the property, £30 per week more than we charged in rent Housing and Council Tax benefit was being claimed by the sub- tenant
Case Study 2 (cont.) At interview The tenant decided to terminate the tenancy rather than go to Court Admitted to being employed as Head of Year in a local school
Case Study 3 Data match report received that one of our tenants Appeared to hold a tenancy outside Wolverhampton and was claiming benefit from that address Investigations revealed Had failed to declare the other address when they applied for housing with Wolverhampton Homes Our tenant was an imposter who had supplied false documents in order to obtain housing he was not entitled to Court Hearing Court ruled in our favour Property recovered
Case Study 4 Data match report received Tenants of ours held a tenancy with another housing provider outside Wolverhampton Investigation Revealed The couple had not declared the other tenancy when they applied for housing They claimed to be homeless, sleeping on a friends floor and were given priority status A total of 238 other families bid for the same property when it was advertised They were a professional couple in paid employment
Case Study 4 (cont.) Interview The couple were interviewed under caution and admitted dishonesty They were charged under the Fraud Act (2006) Prosecution The couple pleaded guilty in Court and were both given community punishments and a fine Terminated the tenancy
What to expect Just when you think you’ve seen and heard it all, another case comes along which beats the others hands down! We don’t always get it right
Thank You! Thank you for taking the time to listen Please get in touch if you need any advice or assistance, or if you would simply like to find out more about what we are doing in Wolverhampton www.wolverhamptonhomes.org.uk
Recommend
More recommend
