Agenda item

8.1

Mr Austin said that at the last meeting of this panel, members asked Lewisham Homes to be invited to this meeting to outline the work undertaken by them with regard to Anti-Fraud and Corruption. He then introduced Adam Barrett from Lewisham Homes.

8.2

Mr Barrett said that there was a large number of sub-lettings in the borough. Lewisham Homes operate on information received rather than random investigation. Lewisham homes support National Fraud Investigations; from which council tax and benefits are cross referenced and checked. Data sources are checked with regard to occupancy and identification.

8.3

Mr Barrett said that Lewisham Homes work with the Council with regard to identification of false documents; ultraviolet scanners are one of the methods used. He said that out of 1,200 occupancy checks, 101 properties were recovered; not all of these were fraud, some were cases where a tenant had died but had not been reported.

8.4

Mr Barrett said that contractors were given a check list of things to be aware of when visiting a property, including child care and vulnerable adults. If there are multiple locks in a property, this could be an indication of sub letting. Market rents are a lot higher than social rents and there is a market for illegal letting and high returns from rents.

8.5

The Chair asked whether occupancy checks were based on pre-screening. Mr Barrett confirmed that it was; referrals were received from members of the public, data, and contractors. Random checks are not often undertaken because they are not productive.  The Chair asked whether the cost of pre screening had been compared to random checks. Mr Barrett said that there were no comparative figures but the costs of data matching and other different method of investigative work would be compared to the cost of random checks in the near future.

8.6

The Chair asked how joined up the process of recovery was. Mr Barrett said that reports are submitted to Committees and the Council. Regular meetings are held with Lewisham officers in the fraud team. He intended to test the effectiveness of the process before considering whether any more money should be invested in investigations.  The cost of refurbishment and rent loss would also need to be included in these cost considerations.

8.7

Mr King asked whether there were any comparable figures with other local authorities. Mr Austin said that there were not any directly comparable figures because the stock within each local authority varied. Lewisham recovered 100 properties; another authority considered the recovery of 36 properties to be good.

8.8

Mr King asked whether any of the tenants displaced became the responsibility of Lewisham. Mr Barratt said that some tenants are referred to Lewisham’s housing service who consider whether they should be re-housed. Occupants can be victims of illegal landlords. He did not know whether they would be fast tracked into suitable accommodation.

8.9

Mr Austin said that officers were presented with such scenarios. Sometimes properties had been sub-let in cramped, over crowed conditions. Sometimes the person sub-letting lives in the accommodation with the tenant which is legal.

8.10

Members noted the housing update and thanked Mr Barratt for attending the meeting.

Special Investigations

8.11

The Chair asked whether the number of cases had been reduced. Mr Austin said that, in volume terms yes, as the threshold had been raised to make sure that the most important cases were considered.  This is consistent with the strategy agreed with the Audit Panel last year.

8.12

Councillor Mallory said that some of these success stories outlined in the report should be communicated to the public. Mr Austin agreed. He said that this was the best time to publicise these stories because the annual figures had just been produced. It was agreed that publicity should be arranged for September after the Summer break.

ED R&R

RESOLVED

that the report be noted.