Treat warning signs as prompts to check, not proof of fraud
A convincing-looking document is not, by itself, confirmation that an application is genuine, but neither is an inconsistency proof that an applicant has acted dishonestly. The safest approach is to use the same measured review process for every application, record what you checked, and pause before making assumptions.
Start by looking for information that does not join up across the application, supporting documents and conversations. Where something needs clarification, ask neutral, specific questions and seek independent confirmation through an appropriate, legitimate route. Avoid relying on one document, one reference or a visual impression alone.
This matters because fraudulent applications may be designed as a set of mutually supporting documents rather than a single obvious forgery. Goodlord's analysis, as reported by Landlord Today on 10 August 2026, described AI-generated fake payslips, references and identities, alongside bogus employers and invented referees.
This article is general fraud-risk awareness, not legal, identity-verification or compliance advice. If a case is complex or consequential, seek appropriate qualified professional or official guidance.
Who should take particular care?
Any landlord who reviews applications can encounter misleading information. The reported data should not be used to presume that applicants from a particular area, occupation or background are more likely to be dishonest.
Landlord Today's report says Goodlord flagged 41 applications per 1,000 references for suspected fraud between July 2025 and June 2026. A flag is not a confirmed finding of fraud. The same report describes findings from Goodlord's confirmed-fraud dataset that varied by region and rent level; those are observations from that dataset, not rules for assessing an individual applicant.
In particular, the report says London had the highest confirmed-fraud rate in Goodlord's analysis, followed by the West Midlands, the North West and overseas applications. It also says properties renting for more than £10,000 per month had higher confirmed-fraud rates in that dataset. Use a consistent process regardless of these patterns.
Common warning signs to review carefully
One issue may have an innocent explanation. Several connected discrepancies deserve a slower review.
Details that conflict across the application
Compare information supplied at different stages. For example, note where names, addresses, dates, employment details, income figures or contact details differ between documents or from the applicant's explanation. Ask the applicant to clarify the specific point rather than making a broad accusation.
Documents that are unusually convenient or internally inconsistent
A payslip, reference or ID may look polished and still need checking. Pause if the information appears incomplete, follows an unexpected format, contains mismatched details, or does not align with the rest of the application. The question is not whether a document “looks fake”; it is whether the information can be sensibly corroborated.
References that cannot be independently substantiated
A reference can be less useful if the referee's identity, role or relationship to the applicant is unclear. Take care where contact details appear to have been supplied only by the applicant and cannot be independently corroborated. Goodlord's findings reported by Landlord Today identify fake employment references and referee fraud among the types of fraud that increased during 2025.
Pressure to skip normal steps
Urgency is not evidence of wrongdoing: applicants can have legitimate reasons to move quickly. But requests to bypass a usual stage, provide less information than other applicants, or accept a last-minute substitution of key documents are reasons to slow down and apply your normal process consistently.
A complete story that depends on the same unverified source
The concern is greater where employment, income, identity and references all rely on connected people or contact channels that have not been independently checked. Landlord Today's report says Goodlord observed a move towards constructing whole false identities, rather than using only one forged document.
A fair, repeatable application-review workflow
A written workflow makes it easier to be thorough without treating applicants unfairly.
- Set the same stages for comparable applications. Decide what information you need and apply the process consistently.
- Compare the information already supplied. Check that key details align across the application, documents and communications.
- Record questions, answers and follow-up. Keep a clear, factual note of discrepancies and the clarification requested. Avoid speculative labels.
- Seek appropriate independent corroboration. Do not treat a contact route supplied within a document as automatically conclusive; consider whether the underlying information can be checked through an appropriate independent channel.
- Give the applicant a chance to explain. Put the discrepancy neutrally and allow enough time for a response. An error, a name change or an administrative issue may explain it.
- Decide based on the complete picture. Do not base a decision on an unsupported allegation or a single superficial clue.
- Keep documents and notes organised. A clear record helps you review the application consistently and explain how you reached a decision if needed.
For smaller portfolios, a central place for property, tenancy and document information can make this administrative review easier to manage. You can explore Portfoliq's landlord features for tools intended to organise that information.
What to do if you suspect fraud
Do not confront an applicant with a conclusion that you cannot support. Instead, pause the application where appropriate, identify the precise information that needs clarification, and follow your documented process.
If you believe you have been the victim of fraud, the National Residential Landlord Association's chief policy officer, quoted in the Landlord Today report, recommends contacting the police and Action Fraud. The report also recommends that landlords regularly review the systems they use to assess applications as fraud methods develop.
Keep any record factual: what was supplied, what did not match, what question was asked and what response was received. For questions about identity checks, discrimination, data handling, tenancy decisions or reporting, use qualified professional or official guidance relevant to your circumstances.
Why routine review matters
The issue is not limited to obviously crude paperwork. In Goodlord's analysis reported by Landlord Today, fake employment references were the fastest-growing fraud type in 2025, rising 226.6% year on year; referee fraud rose 146.4% and identity manipulation rose 140.4%. The report says major fraud categories had fallen slightly in 2026 to date, but that fake references, bogus referees and forged payslips remained above 2024 levels.
The same article reports a modelled potential exposure of up to £4.1 billion a year across the sector. This is not an observed total loss: it is Goodlord's estimate based on its suspected-fraud rate, assumptions about privately rented households and references, and estimated costs associated with a fraudulent tenancy.
The practical takeaway is modest but important: build in time to compare information, seek clarification and document the review. That will not guarantee that fraud is detected or prevented, but it can reduce the chance that a decision rests on an unchecked inconsistency.
A simple pre-decision checklist
Before progressing an application, ask:
- Do the key personal, address, employment and income details align?
- Have any discrepancies been put to the applicant fairly and clearly?
- Is important information supported by more than one source where appropriate?
- Have I avoided treating a concern as proof?
- Have I recorded the checks and the basis for my decision?
- If I believe fraud may have occurred, do I need qualified advice or to consider the reporting route highlighted by the NRLA?
A consistent, evidence-led process protects both landlords and applicants better than a rushed judgement based on how convincing a document appears.