By Keith Cooper

Building more social homes is the sure route out of the housing crisis, right?

The case for this straightforward solution seems clear cut. It was made again recently with big numbers in a report commissioned by Shelter and the National Housing Federation. Raising 90,000 social rented homes in a year would add £51.2bn to the country’s wealth, save £4.5bn on homelessness costs and support 140,000 jobs.

Who could argue with that? Building more homes is the only way to go.

Or is it? Here are some other big and small figures that say otherwise, that point to another largely untapped route out of the crisis which associations must explore if their claim for more funding is to have credibility.

Despite owning 4.4 million homes, housing associations reported an improbably tiny 204 tenancy frauds to the Regulator of Social Housing last year. With a turnover of £16bn in lettings alone, they admit to losing an inconsequential £127,433 from scams, such as illegal subletting. Many of the largest associations say they suffered no fraud at all.

It might not be obvious why such small beer losses are worth worrying about. Or what these apparently miniscule levels of fraud have to do with the housing crisis. But consider what associations could do if they took fraud seriously, an attitude not indicated by these paltry reports.

When tenancy-fraud busting was last in vogue in the 2010s, local authorities alone were freeing up 3,000 social homes a year. With many more homes under their management, associations could liberate up to 5,000 more from the hands of fraudsters, according to the Tenancy Fraud Forum, which examines these matters. Added together, that’s 8,000 social homes each year for homeless families or those languishing on list – more than 80% of the new social homes built last year. It would put a serious dent in the big numbers we supposedly need.

So, why aren’t associations as interested in freeing up homes under fraudsters’ control as they are about building new ones?  Theories abound.

Some say associations see no benefit to themselves of ejecting fraudsters, as long as the rent continues to be paid, as it would be when homes are illegally sub-let. And why go to the cost of recruiting a fraud-busting team if it doesn’t benefit your own bottom line?

Another belief is that associations are too occupied with other priorities, such as unsafe cladding, damp and deadly mould, to be bothered with scams which their regulator doesn’t keep track of. Despite estimates that 150,000 social homes are subject to some kind of tenancy fraud, their regulator doesn’t collate or report data on it. The fraud figures above were only obtained by a freedom of information request.

A more plausible thought is that this laissez-faire attitude to tenancy fraud has just become ‘normalised’ by associations, like their response towards tenants’ complaints about the conditions of their homes. But unlike damp and mould, tenancy fraud is unlikely to be linked to the death of a child, become the lead story on ITV news, or to prompt a raft of new laws.

In the end, this apparent disinterest in fraud most likely comes down to a difference in attitude between development and management, long observed in associations. Building shiny new homes has always been a more attractive side of the business than looking after the ones that you’ve got. They’re better backgrounds for photo opportunities with chief executives and board members for sure.

There’s no doubt more funding and social homes are needed. But why trust associations with even more taxpayer-funded housing when they’ve so many illegally-occupied ones of their own?