Category Archives: Housing

Open Source and Housing Investigation

Dear Auntie,
Our legal team has started making a fuss about the investigation team using their own Facebook accounts.
The investigation team only use Facebook as an intelligence gathering tool, and only view publicly open accounts, we don’t ‘make friends’ (as I’ve seen to my despair, that some Local Authorities and Housing Associations are doing).
I remember reading something last year about forthcoming changes to Facebook and local authorities, but for the life of me I can’t find it anywhere. We have one particular person outside my team who spends her entire day on Facebook, and I am concerned that, if she continued using it for debt recovery purposes then the whole local authority could end up be banned from using Facebook.
Could you please offer some advice on whether my team can legally continue to use Facebook, as an intelligence gathering tool only, and only using open sources, and where to find the new changes to legislation regarding Local Authorities and Facebook use.
Thankyou
H

Dear H,
In simple terms, there is nothing wrong with undertaking ‘open source’ enquiries ; this includes accessing FB and other social networking sites. This is not a legislative change – this is as it always has been – this difference is that the Surveillance Commissioners have been reminding everyone about this, so that getting it wrong may end up in an OSC report, in addition to any defence arguments about admissibility of evidence.
There are, however, some issues to be aware of :
(1) Were an officer to communicate with the person or gain access to information by sending a ‘friend request’, this would probably constitute acting as a CHIS ;
(2) Repeated access, beyond the initial search and view of an open source enquiry would probably constitute directed surveillance ;
(3) The use of an officer’s own account is a security risk, as some sites allow users to know who has looked at their pages (profile etc.) and some actively inform users of this. (Even if it is not explicitly communicated to users, it is often implicit in other ways : have you ever wondered how FB decides to ask if you ‘know these people’? They may be friends of friends, people who have viewed your profile four or five times or people who share an ip address with you / your friends / etc..)
I hope this helps!
Kind regards,
Auntie
Interested in a Law Update Course?

Case Law : Guidance on Calculating Unlawful Profit Orders

Poplar HARCA v (1) Begum (2) Rohim – Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2040 (QB)
The respondents were granted an assured tenancy of a two-bedroom flat in Poplar ; the rent was met in full by payments of Housing Benefit. During the course of the tenancy, they moved out of the property and sub-let it. They retained the ‘use’ of a single room, padlocked shut, in which they kept children’s belongings in an attempt to avoid detection in case of an inspection by the landlord. Following their sublet, they gained a rental income of £400 a month.

At the original trial, the landlord claimed that the Respondents had parted with possession of the entire property, thereby losing security of tenure (s.15A of the Housing Act 1988). (It also claimed the right to possession under grounds 10, 12, 14 of the HA.) The Respondents denied moving out of the flat, saying that they had left only to care for a sick relative and that they had received no money from the ‘relatives’ who were staying at the address. The Recorder found that the respondents had not parted with possession but made a suspended possession order on the other grounds. He refused to make a UPO, finding that the Respondents had not made enough from any sub-letting to meet the rental payments.

In addition to overturning the suspended possession order and granting possession to the landlord, His Honour Judge Turner, sitting in the High Court, gave the first guidance during an appeal decision in relation to the granting and calculation of an Unlawful Profit Order.

Get Housing Fraud Training

Section 5 of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act (PoSHFA) says that (in simple terms) the amount of any order should be the income generated unlawfully less any rent actually paid. The first step is to determine the total amount the tenant received as a result of [the sublet] (or the best estimate of that amount). Next you must deduct from that amount the total amount, if any, paid by the tenant as rent to the landlord (including service charges) in relation to [the period during which the property was sublet]. In making his calculations, the landlord argued, the Recorder had accounted for the Housing Benefit as rent paid but not as income received ; this, they said, could not be correct.
The Judge agreed, holding that, the word, ‘total’ means that any income that arises from the ‘the dishonest relinquishment of possession’ should be considered as income received – to do otherwise would defeat the “obvious intention of Parliament to provide a mechanism with which to strip him of his spoils.”

Note to investigators : The judge’s words mean that any income derived from the property should be included in the calculation, so do look for benefits, grants, alterations etc., in compiling your figures.

Get Housing Fraud Training

View the full case on www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/2040.html

The Tenancy Fraud Forum (TFF)

John Bearcroft, TFF
June 2017

The TFF was launched in 2012 and is an independent organisation specifically dealing with Tenancy Fraud.  It is a National platform for the representatives of the numerous regional Tenancy Fraud Forums and for staff of Housing Providers strongly involved with the investigation of tenancy fraud to come together to raise awareness of this type of fraud, how to combat it and for the sharing of best practice.  The TFF main aim therefore, is to bring all Social Landlords together to work collaboratively to combat tenancy fraud.

The group meet approx. quarterly and discuss various issue regarding tenancy fraud including awareness campaigns, actions and successes, legal updates and, one of the most important tasks – the setting up of the TFF Conferences.  There have been two very successful, sold-out conferences to date, with a further Conference schedules for October 2017.  The Conferences have covered numerous fraud related issues such as identity verification, unlawful profit orders, Right-to-Buy Fraud, joint working and evidence gathering.

At present, 6 regional TFFs are represented, including members from London, Gloucestershire, Hereford & Worcestershire, Dorset, Oxford and Hampshire.  Work has also been carried out to assist groups in Cambridgeshire, Devon, Dorset, Essex, Hertfordshire, North West, Northern Ireland, South East London, South West London, Suffolk, Surrey, Swindon, Wales and West Midlands.  TFF members have also visited Scotland and Northern Ireland, providing advice and assistance on tenancy fraud and the benefits of setting up a regional group.  Support and information is also provided to groups and individuals regarding best practice and the setting up of more regional TFFs.

TFF - Tenancy Fraud Fourum

Information and advice is also given through a Yammer group on Housing, Tenancy and Proactive Fraud actions, including reports of successes and best practice.  Periodically, the TFF produces a publication ‘Knock. Knock’ which is full of news and tips to tackle tenancy fraud.  On some high level subjects, Counsel’s Opinion is obtained to provide information and legal advice on common, more complex issues.

The main purpose of the TFF is to reduce tenancy fraud and its impact on organisations and, more importantly, individuals who, due to fraud, are not able to obtain the assistance they need with their housing issues.  Social housing is very limited resource and therefore, it is important that it is fairly allocated to those in highest housing need and continues to assist the rightful tenants with their needs.

Get Housing Fraud Training

This year’s TFF Conference is being held in London on 26th October 2017.  The past Conferences have proved very popular and therefore. Early booking is essential.  Planned sessions included in this year’s Conference include Data Sharing, Money Laundering, dealing with short-term sub-lets/rentals, use of social media and the internet in gathering evidence, conducting interviews  and the work of the National Fraud Initiative.  There will also be numerous stands from key partners in the tackling of tenancy fraud. 

THE CONFERENCE IS NOW SOLD OUT

Your Reputation is at Risk…

…if you do not keep your eye on the opportunistic fraudster!

The regulator has warned associations to keep reputational risk in mind now that new freedoms to dispose of stock, merge, and restructure without consent are in place.  Now that the regulator’s consent powers have been reduced, much of the risk rests with the RSL sector. Social Landlords will have to think carefully about how what they are doing affects their long-term reputational risk.

One risk that’s not specifically mentioned, but that is worthy of consideration nonetheless, is the risk of fraud.  This can arise in many ways, not just from the ever-present risk of sub-letting and abandonment.  In a deregulated market, every sale will be subject to scrutiny and one fraud risk that all HAs will wish to rule out is that of corrupt influence on sales.  This could arise as a result of an undeclared conflict of interest, for example, or by a member of staff giving a prospective purchaser the ‘inside track’ on proposed stock disposals.