Tackling social housing fraud

The 3rd edition of my book, Cornerstone on Social Housing Fraud, was published on 30 July 2026. The cliché is that we all have a book in us, although the late Christopher Hitchens commented that everybody does have a book in them, but in most cases that is where it should stay; I hope its readers, and those “dipping in” to its content as and when needed, will find it interesting, helpful and not at all indicative of Hitchens’ warning.

Publication context

Nine years on from the 1st edition, I have retained the structural content and continued to focus very much on social landlords’ civil law responses to housing fraud (though there is a chapter on criminal prosecutions and sanctions).

The book therefore continues to address unlawful sub-letting, false allocations for housing, only or principal home questions and right to buy fraud, especially in the context of possession claims and financial remedies. There is also a discussion on evidential pros and cons, and data protection issues.

Recent practice examples

Ironically, the actual official publication date, the 30 July 2026, would have been the 4th day of a 4-day Airbnb sub-letting possession trial I had been instructed in, although in fact the matter was concluded on day 2. July though was also a month where I had acted for a local authority seeking possession of a flat following their discovery of the tenant’s use of Gumtree and purchase of a property many miles away. The production of WhatsApp messages between tenant and sub-tenant proved especially helpful.

My practice extends well beyond housing fraud, but I have always enjoyed and found stimulating the work covered in my book. Some cases are straightforward, but many others require careful investigation, consideration of process and cross examination.

Practical takeaways

Those recent examples illustrate why the work calls for persistence, careful scrutiny of evidence and a willingness to test apparently straightforward explanations. My key takeaways are:

• Investigation should be carried out with an open mind and not stop at the service of notices or even the issue of proceedings.
• There may be no one killer point or piece of evidence, and often it is the number of discrepancies, inconsistencies and/or unexplained data that is key.
• Bank statements are often important indicators of the alleged misuse – showing receipt of rent, payments to public and other bodies outside the expected area, etc.
• Always stress and evidence the local housing need and demand.
• Try and get contemporaneous records of the testimony of neighbours, the sub-tenants, etc as these will be available as hearsay even if the maker does not attend the trial.
• Data matching is an essential tool.
• Always give the tenant the opportunity to respond to the evidence and case of the social landlord before the issue of proceedings and use disclosure, Part 18 etc applications and requests after a claim has begun.

In finishing this article, one of my ‘favourite’ quotes when writing about housing fraud is from Mr Justice Turner when he said in Poplar HARCA v Begum [2017] EWHC 2040 (QB); [2017] H.L.R. 42 at para. 40 in addressing a discretionary ground for possession following a finding of sub-letting of the part:

“I would stress that it is not compassionate to allow profiteering fraudsters indefinitely to continue to occupy premises and thereby exclude from such accommodation more needy and deserving families.”

That observation remains a sharp reminder of why effective civil responses to social housing fraud continue to matter in practice.

Andrew Lane is a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.