Click here to see a full list of events

If you work for a housing association, an investigation team or a local authority housing, homelessness or housing advice unit, we’ve got courses and consultancy to support you in your work. From time-to-time, we’ll publish articles and presentations related to Housing Investigation (and Ask Auntie Q&As), which you can read at the foot of the page.

If you’re after an example RTB Supplementary Information form, you can find it here :  RTB1ASupplementaryInfo (opens in new tab).

Listed below are some courses that will help in the work you do :

Preventing and Detecting Housing Fraud – everything you need to know to create a robust anti-fraud strategy.

Identity Verification – are you sure you know who you’re speaking to? ID Theft and impersonation is at an all time high!

Investigation Law and Practice – a great grounding in how to deal with allegations of fraud without compromising any later investigation.

Civil Enquiry Skills – undertake this BTEC qualification that will give you all the skills you need to verify applications for assistance. (Leads to a BTEC Advanced Award from Edexcel.)

Open Source Intelligence and Evidence Gathering – learn how to use available information to carry out in-depth enquiries without ever leaving the building!

Investigation – highly rated Professional qualification at Level 5, covers all you need to know to take cases from start to court. (Leads to a BTEC Professional Certificate from Edexcel.)

Psychology of Interviewing – for those who are serious about interviewing, this is the course to undertake…

If you work in Benefit Investigations, here are some suggestions for you.

Courses in Investigation and Managing Investigations
Our BTEC Courses are some of the most in-depth courses available. Modular and easily tailored to your job specifications, click on one of the links above for more information.

Authorised Officer Powers – This course now covers LCTRS and Housing Powers

Examining Accounts – Price Code E
A two day course that examines how to check a basic set of accounts for accuracy, how to reconcile income against expenses and how to spot the common dodges.

Presentations

Presentation from TFF Conference – November 2019 (“Interviewing for Housing Fraud”) SAFS Housing Fraud Mini-Conference – November 2018 (An introduction to fraud prevention in the Housing Fraud arena.) TFF AGM 2017 (Includes a bit of PEACE, a bit of PACE and, Ghosh, some caselaw)

Airbnb and Housing Fraud

Airbnb have (for the first time, we think) entered into an agreement to assist with houising fraud.  Click here to read all about the stirling work done by Steph at RBK&C.  (Opens in new tab.)

Ask Auntie

Hi Auntie,

Just a quick question that so far no one has been able to answer. Under the PoSHFA, a person must sub-let or ‘part with possession’ of a property to commit the offence. We have a lot of cases where either there is a clear sub-let, or the tenant has simply left the property (to live elsewhere etc). quite often they do this when they are in a new relationship but keep the property as a ‘fall back’.

There is no definition in the act, or anywhere that I can find, for ‘parting with possession’. Do you have any material that explains this term?

In my mind, this would be leaving the property and not having control of the property. We have a case where a chap has left his place for 2 years, and lives with his partner a short walk away. No usage at all over 2 years. He pops back every month or so to open a window and collect mail. He is now accusing us of breaching his human rights by looking into him as he was not committing an offence.

Someone described ‘parting with possession’ as key selling – however, to me this is also sub-letting, as someone else is using the property. They couldn’t advise any further.

As PoSHFA gives us quite a few powers when it comes to obtaining info, it would be good to be clear on whether those abandoning properties may also be committing offences under this act.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Kind regards,

John

——————-

Hi John,

Parting with possession is not key selling ;  key selling is creating an undertenancy or assignment which is sub-letting ;  parting with possession means surrendering certain specific rights over the control of occupation (more below).

The powers granted under PoSHFA may be used, as set out in s.7(b), when investigating, “an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 relating to the unlawful sub-letting or parting with possession of the whole or part of a dwelling-house let by a local authority, a private registered provider of social housing or a registered social landlord…” ;  if, therefore, you are investigating a case where a tenant is not resident then (unless there is already a reasonable explanation) you are, quite obviously, undertaking enquiries to see whether the property has been sub-let or abandoned and, if it has, whether the lawful tenant has parted with possession of the property.

If they have parted with possession or sublet, they lose security permanently.  The Housing Act 1985 s.93(2) :  If the tenant under a secure tenancy parts with the possession of the dwelling-house or sublets the whole of it (or sublets first part of it and then the remainder), the tenancy ceases to be a secure tenancy and cannot subsequently become a secure tenancy.  PoSHFA makes a similar provision for assured tenants, inserting s.15A into the Housing Act 1988 :  (2) The tenancy ceases to be an assured tenancy and cannot subsequently become an assured tenancy.

When it comes to parting with possession, the devil is in the detail and there is much case law in the area.

Firstly, the courts have made it clear that occupation and possession are two entirely different things.  A person may cease to occupy premises, yet retain possession of them.  The language used in Ansa Logistics Limited v Towerbeg Limited [2012] is that possession amounts to “…the right of the person in occupation to exclude others, including the tenant, from the premises.”  

This means that a tenant may cease to occupy property but will not be deemed to have relinquished possession unless they do so unambiguously and absolutely.  This means that they have no intention to return at some putative future date.  (It does leave an interesting situation that a prosecution under the Fraud Act (but not necessarily PoSHFA) might succeed whilst possession proceedings might not :  the tenant could be convicted of lying to a housing officer about where they lived, in order to facilitate a continuing sub-let, yet argue that they had an intention to return, and hence not have relinquished possession.)  Do note though that Ansa Logistics Limited v Towerbeg concerned commercial leases rather than social housing. 

The 2017 case of Dove v London Borough of Havering [2017] is also helpful.  In this case the two Appellants, Elaine and Evelyn Dove, were twins to whom LB Havering had granted the joint tenancy of a flat in Romford.  Following investigations, the council served notice to quit which required possession after 14 November 2011 as the authority considered the Appellants did not satisfy the tenant condition.

The sisters’ appeal against the decision that they did not occupy the flat as their principal home, contending that the judge had failed to consider the intention of either Appellant as regards the flat, was dismissed.  Amongst other matters, Lewison LJ endorsed the principles set out by Etherton LJ in Islington LBC v Boyle [2011] EWCA Civ 1450; [2012] HLR 18, at [65], i.e., that the length or other circumstances of the tenant’s absence may raise an inference that the tenant no longer occupies the property as his principal home which casts the burden on the tenant to prove, by reference to objective facts, that his enduring intention and belief was that the property remained his principal home.

“The fact that she was not actually living in Avenell Mansions at the relevant date does not necessarily mean that the question whether she had a secure tenancy at that time must be answered in the negative. It depends upon how she viewed her long term future. Equally, she may or may not have changed her mind from time to time. The onus is on her to establish that she had a long term intention to return to Avenell Mansions and to occupy it as her sole or principal home.”

In such circumstances, the question of intention to return is in reality an intention to revert to a previous pattern of existence.  Notwithstanding statements to the contrary, his findings supported his conclusion that the Appellants ceased to occupy the property as their principal home.  (Evidence, including utility bills, was relied on in proof.)

This means that, in effect, an ‘intention to return’ could form a defence for a tenant facing an allegation of parting with possession or sub-letting a property ;  however the court is under a duty to weigh any assertion made by the tenant very carefully against the evidence.

The bottom line is that possession and occupation are separate legal concepts and that the real test is whether the tenant had completely transferred its right to exclude others from the premises. 

Cases

Ansa Logistics Limited v Towerbeg Limited   www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/3651.html

Dove v London Borough of Havering  www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/156.html

London Borough of Islington v Boyle & Anr  www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1450.html

Articles

The Tenancy Fraud Forum (TFF)
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…

[…read more]