CPD module: tenancy fraud – how to spot it and how to fight it

Tenancy fraud (also known as housing fraud; the two terms are used interchangeably) is when a social home is being used by someone who is not entitled to occupy it.

While there is no definitive data source outlining its prevalence, it has been estimated that hundreds of thousands of homes are being fraudulently occupied. This reduces the number of properties available to genuine claimants, at a time when the social housing waiting list is at a record high, and brings with it both financial and social consequences.

This CPD article considers the issue of tenancy fraud. It details the ways in which it can manifest, what is known about tenancy fraud, how it affects landlords and the communities they manage, and what can be done to identify and prevent it.

• Subletting: This includes both short-term lets – now commonly via holiday rental platforms such as Airbnb – and letting to a longer-term tenant, sometimes by advertising the property with an estate agent. Under the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act, which came into force in 2013, unauthorised subletting of social housing is a criminal offence in England and Wales.
• Non-occupation: When a tenant fails to use their social property as their sole or principal home. They may, for instance, have moved in with a partner and so no longer need the home, but have not informed their landlord of their change in circumstance.
• Succession fraud: An increasingly common form of tenancy fraud – about 40% of Islington’s housing investigations team’s caseload is now dedicated to it, and a third of the properties it recovers are found to be used in succession fraud. It involves someone falsely exercising the right to take over a tenancy, for example by laying claim to succession by stating they lived in the property with the original tenant prior to their death.
• False housing applications: When someone supplies incorrect information which makes them appear eligible for a social property when they are not, or fails to declare information which would make them ineligible.
• Right to Buy fraud: This method has become more common since the 2012 relaunch of the Right to Buy (RTB), which increased the discount available to tenants purchasing their home and so created an increased potential for profit. Tenants must meet strict criteria to access the RTB. Fraud can involve giving inaccurate information when applying to buy the home, but also a tenant having accepted a cash incentive from a company that applies to buy the home on their behalf.
• Key selling: Where a tenant sells on their tenancy to someone else. A common scenario is that someone has started a new relationship and moves in with their new partner, so they no longer need their social home and want to make some money by fraudulently passing it on.

Housing fraud is not static, and new methods continue to emerge over time. Temporary accommodation fraud seems to be rising in prevalence, with some tenants found to be subletting such accommodation or not using it as their main home.

There is an expectation that social landlords should combat tenancy fraud. Under the Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenancy Standard, which applies to England, registered providers “must take action to prevent and tackle tenancy fraud”. The standard requires social landlords to “make sure that the home continues to be occupied by the tenant they let the home to, in accordance with the requirements of the relevant tenancy agreement, for the duration of the tenancy, allowing for regulatory requirements about participation in mutual exchange schemes”.

There is no central record of tenancy fraud rates, or of the number of homes recovered by landlords following fraudulent activity. Such figures did previously exist via the Audit Commission, but have not been collected since that body’s abolition in 2015. Even when the Audit Commission did exist, it was only collating data on tenancy fraud in local authorities, not housing associations, and only in England. This means the data failed to provide a complete picture of the situation.

The Tenancy Fraud Forum, a network seeking to fight tenancy fraud, has sought to address this data gap. In 2023, it joined with the Fraud Advisory Panel to publish the Lost Homes, Lost Hope report. Based on data gathered from social landlords, it estimated that in England:

• There are 148,000 social homes subject to tenancy fraud at any one time
• In London, one in 20 social homes is subject to tenancy fraud
• In the rest of the country, one in 30 social homes is subject to tenancy fraud

There is some data available from other UK nations. In Scotland, work by the National Fraud Initiative saw 280 people removed from the social housing waiting list in 2022-23. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, meanwhile, received 356 reports of housing fraud from 1 April 2023 to 30 September 2024.

• Financial: In 2012, the now-defunct National Fraud Authority estimated that tenancy fraud was the second-largest cause of local government fraud losses. A 2021 publication by the Fraud Advisory Panel, the Charity Commission for England and Wales, the Tenancy Fraud Forum and the London Boroughs’ Fraud Investigators’ Group, estimated that tenancy fraud represents an average accounting book loss per property of £37,000 and an average national cost to the taxpayer per detected tenancy fraud of £42,000.
• Social: The supply of social housing is already insufficient to meet need and tenancy fraud makes that situation worse. With short-term holiday lets via sites such as Airbnb, residents are left with strangers living in their communities. Visitors may arrive late at night, and perhaps cause disruption by parking in the wrong places or leaving rubbish out at the wrong place and the wrong time. All of this makes communities less pleasant for those living in them. It is understandably frustrating for honest residents with friends and relatives waiting for a property witnessing the fraudulent use of homes.

• Raise awareness, internally and externally: Awareness of the cost of tenancy fraud at a senior level is likely to lead to both support for and investment in combating it. Achieving this might include introducing fraud awareness training, particularly to give frontline officers and repairs staff an understanding of how to recognise it. Publicising successful cases, when a social landlord has recovered a property, is helpful in building awareness of the issue. This may make residents more inclined to report concerns.
• Have clear reporting routes: Raising awareness is only helpful if there are clear internal and external channels to report concerns, eg a form on the landlord’s website, or a specific email address or phone number.
• Have a tenancy fraud policy: In England, the regulator requires providers to publish “clear and accessible policies which outlined their approach to tenancy management, including interventions to sustain tenancies and prevent unnecessary evictions, and tackling tenancy fraud”. A policy creates a clear understanding of the organisation’s approach.
• Have robust application processes: It is crucial that application forms – whether for housing, succession or the RTB – make clear that any false information given knowingly by a tenant will jeopardise their application for housing and potentially lead to a criminal prosecution. It is also helpful to specify that the information on the form may be shared with other agencies for the prevention and detection of fraud. The details a tenant provides need to be carefully checked – including looking for false statements and gaps.
• Ensure tenancy conditions are clearly communicated: Tenants should be aware of what they are – and are not – allowed to do under the terms of their tenancy, including any behaviour that would constitute fraud. This is important for short-term lets given their increasing popularity. It may be that there are some circumstances in which, with permission from the landlord, a tenant could rent out a bedroom. Making clear in tenancy conditions the need to seek permission ensures residents understand the situation and cannot plead ignorance if they violate this. Where possible, landlords should keep copies of identity documents when issuing a tenancy. This makes it easier to prove who should be living in the property. Having a photograph of the tenant to whom the property has been let is helpful, making it possible for frontline officers to know who should be in the home.
• Build partnerships: There should be a collaborative approach to combating tenancy fraud. This includes within the organisation, where success will depend on joint working by housing management, housing needs teams, rent teams, those focusing on anti-social behaviour, caretakers and other on-site teams. It is also helpful to foster connections with tenants’ and residents’ associations, social services and councils (for housing associations) or with housing associations (for councils). Nationally, the Tenancy Fraud Forum is a free-to-join network which shares best practice.

A lack of available social housing, coupled with the cost of living crisis, is leaving many in desperate situations. Some fraudulent claims reflect that desperation and mean that staff have to review some extremely sad situations. It is valuable for leaders to be aware of these challenges and to consider in which cases it is, and is not, valuable to pursue prosecution. These are difficult conversations, but they are important to have.

• How is tenancy fraud currently tackled in your organisation? How effective do you think that approach is?
• How common is tenancy fraud at your organisation? 
  Are figures collected? If so, what are the difficulties in collating this data?
• What are your reflections on the ethical dimensions of fighting tenancy fraud? Are there situations which make it more or less appropriate to pursue a prosecution?
• What one point in this piece do you want to share with colleagues who may not have read it? How will you share it?

Tenancy fraud, in which a social home is used by someone not entitled to occupy it, is a common issue and one with associated financial and social costs. There are multiple ways social landlords can combat the issue, including raising awareness internally and externally; having clear reporting routes for concerns; having a tenancy fraud policy and robust application processes; and making sure tenancy conditions are clearly communicated. Partnership working can also assist.

With 148,000 social homes in England believed to be subject to tenancy fraud, there is the potential to free up thousands of homes for those with legitimate claims.

Next, answer the questions below. Get all the questions correct and you will receive a certificate confirming your award of 30 CPD minutes within 10 working days via email. Get any questions wrong and you can retake the test by refreshing your web browser.

• Fraud Advisory Panel and Tenancy Fraud Forum (2023), Lost Homes, Lost Hope
• Fraud Advisory Panel, Tenancy Fraud Forum and London Boroughs’ Fraud Investigators’ Group (2021), Calculating losses from housing tenancy fraud
• Regulator of Social Housing (2012, updated 2024), Tenancy Standard
• Audit Scotland (2024), The National Fraud Initiative in Scotland 2024