Agenda item

6.1  Paul Langford, head of operations, housing and community services, introduced the report.

6.2  The strategic director of housing and community services explained that the council was trying to get to grips with illegal occupancy and was one of the leading players nationally.  This year the council had a target of recovering three hundred properties and next year this would increase to five hundred.  The council was trialling new techniques and technology, working with the corporate anti-fraud team and with the police and the UK Border Agency.  Southwark had also recently applied for government funding to help in this area.  The strategic director stated that there was a strong commercial and criminal aspect to social housing fraud.  Some tenants attempted to rent out property via websites such as Rightmove.  There were increasing examples of properties converted into multiple occupancy, which in itself caused additional risk to health and safety.  Because properties were often sub-let to vulnerable adults and households with children who existed under the radar, the problem was increasingly seen as needing a whole-council response.

6.3  The chair described his experience of visiting constituents and receiving reports of possible illegal occupancies.  He wondered what else could be done to open up opportunities for tenants to report directly to the council, for instance whether a question could be asked whenever tenants contacted the council on any matter.  The strategic director felt that this was a suggestion worth looking into.  She also reported recent coverage of the issue in Southwark Housing News and that the council had written to all repairs and gas contractors as they would often come across suspicious circumstances.  The council was also piloting a joint annual gas servicing, repairs check and tenancy check which would also include social services.  In addition, tenants’ and residents’ associations were quick to provide information and this had led to early morning swoops on properties.  The head of operations added that initiatives had been very successful and that almost as many properties again had been got back through regular contact with residents as those properties identified and tackled by the special investigations team.

6.4  The chair asked whether other boroughs were taking any action that Southwark was not.  The head of operations stated that Southwark was not resting on its laurels and, although it remained the best performing London borough in terms of percentage and number of properties, the council was keen to improve its learning and was sharing experiences and best practice with Lewisham and Greenwich.  He commented that repeat offenders existed, moving from borough to borough, and that the more data shared the better able the council was to intervene.

6.5  A member questioned the effectiveness of three distinct fraud teams.  He also wondered whether properties existed which never for example reported repairs problems and asked if a lack of interaction with the council might suggest illegal occupancy.  The head of operations stressed that the work of the fraud teams was very joined up at strategic and operational levels.  He commented that the issue of non-reporting was an area which was being pursued and that he welcomed any suggestions.

6.6  A member highlighted that while possible illegal occupancies might be identified, it was unclear how these should be reported and often there was no feedback in response.  The strategic director offered to circulate to all members of the council an email she had recently sent out to senior managers about illegal sub-letting.  This set out how to report suspicions and the details of the first point of officer contact who would also ensure feedback to ward councillors.

6.7  A member of the sub-committee asked whether there were any hot-spots geographically and asked about joint working with registered providers of social housing (RPs).  The head of operations stated that the issue was borough-wide and driven by opportunistic behaviour.  He explained that the funding the council had applied for related to work with RPs and pointed out that illegal occupancy had a knock-on effect in terms of the council’s nomination rights.  The strategic director added that the hope was that the new legislation, which made illegal occupancy a criminal offence, would act as a deterrent.  The council already took out prosecutions as fraud was a criminal offence.  The new legislation was an additional tool.

6.8  The vice-chair asked about any options for legal sub-letting.  The head of operations explained that sub-letting was not permitted but that tenants could allow someone to stay in the property if they were away for a certain period of time.  The tenant would have to demonstrate that they were the main resident.  In effect, the tenant would need to demonstrate that they were permanently resident.  The strategic director added that a room could be let to a lodger but that the property could not be sub-let as a whole and that the council needed to be kept informed.  The head of operations emphasised that leaseholders were able to sub-let their property but that converting a property into multiple occupation without complying with fire and other regulations was illegal.  Leaseholders could be prosecuted through the London Fire Brigade.

6.9  The chair acknowledged the good work that was already taking place within the council in respect of illegal sub-letting.  He indicated that he would come back to the next meeting with a number of possible recommendations for the sub-committee’s consideration.