1. Housing Fraud The Bolton Experience
Craig Hardman & David Miles

2. Background
2009/10 Bolton at Home successful with their bid to receive Government funding
The project was to identify and measure the problem of Housing Fraud within the Bolton area
A clear policy and process was required for staff to work towards identifying and tackling Housing Fraud
Good partnership working would be key to tackling Housing Fraud

3. The Bolton Experience
Developed and introduced a set of policies and procedures
Staff trained on identifying and investigating Housing Fraud
Established procedures to investigate reports and to provide feedback to reporters of fraud
Development of a in-house data base system to allow BH to review existing reports of fraud and seek recovery were fraud is proven
Raise customer awareness of impacts
Advertising campaign, including posters and leaflets
Reporting Hotline & address (report on-line)

4. F.R.E.D F.R.E.D is Bolton at Home’s Fraud Recording Evidence Database
The database had been created to log all reported cases of Housing Fraud
Provides reports for cases that are open and are closed
Providing the ability to highlight area’s that have a high amount of housing fraud reports/cases
Producing graphs and pie charts to highlight which type of fraud is the most common and by area/stock type

8. Reliant on reports being received from members of the public
Advantages
Disadvantages
Local Officers with a good ‘patch’ knowledge of the area/customers
Enhanced partnership working
Ability to accurately record/report on cases
Opportunity to review & revise P&P’s
Resource intensive
Reliant on reports being received from members of the public
90% of cases identified by Officers
Basic monitoring of cases

9. Housing Fraud Project started September 2010
8 properties recovered within the first six months
To date, 77 properties recovered
Over 300 hundred cases investigated
Information Sharing protocols established
Joint interviews undertaken with Councils Home Ownership Section & Benefit Fraud team
Awareness training delivered to all BCH partners

10. Recent Developments
Establishment of Specialist teams located in the four Neighbourhoods as previous structures and processes lacked a ‘service delivery focus’ and consistency
Better use of resources and value for money
Enhanced partnership development
Who’s Home? – Pilot April 2014

11. WHO’S HOME BOLTON AT HOME PILOT INITIAL FINDINGS Whos Home
Initial Feedback

12. Red Orange Amber Yellow
Stock Level
Category
Red
Orange
Amber
Yellow
2133
Benefit concerns
0.14%
12.33%
13.88%
Direct Debit usage
10.17%
6.38%
32.40%
18.05%
Inefficient use of stock
0.42%
17.16%
19.17%
Overcrowded households
1.41%
Possible deceased
0.47%
Tenancy discrepancies
3.47%
4.13%
3.05%
0.89%
Tenancy fraud Concerns
0.09%
2.02%
1.78%
Welfare reform concerns
13.13%
18.00%
15.19%
55.13%
75.81%
32.82%

13. Potential Cases Identified

14. Feedback from Bolton at Home
Enforcement Team - April just started using Who’s Home, have identified 2 cases of tenancy fraud and a further 3 cases are being checked for fraud – but very early days!
Supports proactive and accurate record keeping – e.g. deceased accounts showing joint tenancy when one has died.
Identification of tenants who have direct debit facility will prove to be very useful when Universal Credit comes, will support targeted marketing of DD facility.
Who’s Homes has confirmed 12 records were correct but has flagged up 6 tenancies where a tenant had moved out and someone new has moved in that we had no knowledge.

15. Feedback from Bolton at Home
Who’s Home is very easy to access, screens are well laid out, colour coding works well.
A good starting point in investigating fraud with initial enquiries being followed in a consistent way.
Training still ongoing, but staff want more training
More use of system will increase learning, knowledge and positive outputs

16. “Housing tenancy fraud is not a victimless crime – it reduces the quality of life for tens thousands of families who are unable to access social housing. Tenancy fraud affects families on housing waiting lists and cost taxpayers at least £900 million per year. It is essential for social housing providers and local authorities to work together sharing best practice, knowledge and experience to tackle tenancy fraud and free up homes for those in need. In particular they should make better use of data matching services, such as the National Fraud Initiative, and take part in the Tenancy Fraud Forum”.
Eugene Sullivan, Chief Executive of the Audit Commission