When working for a LA, it is every officers duty to report suspected fraud. So, if a rents officer suspected a tnt of HB fraud, they had a duty to report this to the Fraud Investigation section of the HB dept...

Does anyone know the position for staff working on rents teams in RSL's.. Does this principal still apply, or is it down to the indivisual RSL to provide a policy on this...

I understand many people on Rightsnet work within RSL's, so wondered what the official position is..?

Hi,

As far as I am aware, if any person is aware of a suspected or potential HB fraud, it is their responsibility to report their suspicions. This applies to staff of RSL's.

If a LA has evidence that a staff member at an RSL did not report information they were aware of, in the most extreme case the LA could decide that the landlord 'is not a fit and proper person' and can refuse to pay HB directly to the landlord in the future.

I work for a large national RSL and the advice that I give all members of staff is that if they have any suspicions or doubts to report these to the LA.

This policy also makes it easier (from an RSL's point of view) if overpayments occur as a result of any fraudulent acitivies by the tenants. If the LA is happy that the RSL has not colluded with the tenant in any aspect of the fraud, then the LA should seek recovery of the overpayments from the tenant, not the landlord, even if the landlord was the payee on the claim.

Hope this helps, if you would like to discuss further let me know

Cheers

John

Would like to discuss further, have emailed you, thanks.. x

Quote: "As far as I am aware, if any person is aware of a suspected or potential HB fraud, it is their responsibility to report their suspicions. This applies to staff of RSL's"

Sorry, but I think you are wrong on this point. Can you cite any legal authority for this?

It can be on offence to allow or cause someone to not promptly report a change of circs (see exact wording in s 111A (1B) and s 112 (1B) Social Security Administration Act 1992), but this is very different from imposing a duty to report suspected fraud.

Advisers normally resolve the problem by advising the client of their duty to notify the DWP/LA of the change of circs (ideally client is also advised in writing) and making a file note that they have done so. CPAG issued some advice on this in about 1999.

And yes it would be negligent to not tell people that they may at least face having to repay an overpayment, that DWP/LA have a habit of eventually catching up with them. Letting the client think the problem will go away by not telling will make it a bigger problem.

But actually informing the DWP/LA of the suspected fraud (bearing in mind that many irregular situations are far from fraudulent), as far as I am aware, is not a legal requirement and will destroy your clients' trust in you as an adviser. As welfare rights advisers, our primary professional duty is to the client.

I accept that reg 101 HB regs creates a dilemma for landlords, but that's another debate.

Well said Neil.

Impartial, independent, confidential advice first and foremost.

The report first ask questions later attitude by RSL staff is rife in this area.

Not surprisingly as they have all had basic training by the Council's HB section for varification purposes thus they are doing the council job carrying out varification visits for information on bank accounts, income, benefits claimed etc and more importanltly reporting and stopping many innocent peoples on-going benefits.

Thanks to everyone who has responded..

I suppose the issue is two fold.. One the one hand is the position of the debt adviser and on the other the whole of the rent staff in particular but also other housing staff in the new RSL as a whole..

Seems to be the case that if an individual in the organisation becomes aware of fraud, then they have a duty to report.. The debt adviser can be expemt from this due to the points Neil raised...

mmmmm

there's a duty to report under the proceeds of crime act and money laundering regs ... you should all have a compliance officer and should have had training on that. IMHO (i may be wrong, but doubt it) that applies to WELFS as well as anyone else ....

I have checked this myself in the past as have others and as I recall, advice agencies are not within scope of this (and neither are RSLs).