Public sector: protecting common money with facts

Written by Guillaume Pouillier, CNAPS-licensed private detective, licence no. AGD 095-2024-03-06-20190240581 · Last updated: July 12, 2026

Public bodies have control powers, but rarely field-investigation resources: a benefits officer does not carry out occupancy findings, an HR manager does not verify a parallel activity. That is the link we supply to municipalities, departments, social landlords and public establishments, with the rigour of a CNAPS-licensed agency and reports designed for administrative as well as judicial proceedings. This page describes the typical assignments, the specific legal framework and the way a mission unfolds.

Why would a public body instruct a detective?

Because fraud against public schemes hides in the real world, not in the files: fictitious residences to draw benefits, sublet social housing, staff on sick leave running a business, organised illegal dumping. A fair, dated field finding turns a report into an actionable file.

Reports come in from everywhere, neighbours, services, elected officials, but a report is not evidence, and acting on a mere denunciation exposes the authority to litigation. Our findings objectify the situation: either they confirm the report, and the file can move forward (benefit recovery, lease termination, disciplinary proceedings, complaint); or they refute it, and an unfounded accusation dies without harming the resident.

The exemplarity dimension matters too: fraud spreads where it stays without consequence, and recedes where control is real. A handful of files treated seriously changes the climate of a neighbourhood or an entire social-housing estate, which is why several of our public-sector clients budget these controls as prevention rather than repression.

Which assignments do we handle for local authorities?

Four families dominate: benefit and allowance fraud (fictitious residence, concealed situation), diverted social housing (subletting, non-occupancy), public employees on sick leave carrying on incompatible activities, and attacks on public property, illegal dumping first, whose perpetrators can be documented.

The subletting module draws on our illegal subletting expertise, and sick-leave control on the sick-leave fraud page, transposed to the specifics of public employment.

Does the legal framework differ for a public body?

The base is the same, CNAPS licence, fairness, proportionality, GDPR, with two specific vigilances: public procurement (our services fit within your purchasing thresholds and procedures) and the reinforced protection of residents, which demands strictly factual findings, without profiling or excessive collection.

On procurement: our assignments, one-off and capped, most often fall below the procedure-exemption thresholds; for recurring needs we answer consultations with a transparent price frame, our grid is public, a rarity in the profession.

On substance: a report meant to ground an administrative decision must be unassailable before the administrative court. Findings from public space, dated series, cited open sources, and never any appreciation of private life beyond the question asked. That standard protects the authority as much as the resident.

How does a typical assignment unfold?

The report is analysed, a written scoping agreed with the relevant department (precise question, legal basis, duration), field findings in series, and a factual report delivered to the department and, if needed, to your counsel. Discretion is total, an exposed control loses its value and exposes the officer to conflict.

1. Analysis of the report. Not all justify an investigation: we help you sort what calls for field findings, desk control or closure.

2. Scoping. A written agreement: object, the authority’s legal basis, scope, budget, duration. The DPO can be involved.

3. Findings. A series spaced over time, occupancy or a parallel activity is proven by repetition, not by a snapshot.

4. Report. Factual, dated, time-stamped photographs, ready for the committee, the disciplinary procedure or the judge.

Illegal dumping: how do we trace the perpetrators?

By observing recurrent sites at the relevant time slots, identifying vehicles and supply channels (rogue tradesmen, off-the-books house clearances), and cross-checking online “cheap clearance” listings. Once identified, the authority can fine, prosecute and invoice.

Recurrent dumping is almost never the work of isolated individuals: it is clearance or building professionals saving the cost of the waste centre. Our observations identify vehicles, frequencies and origins; cross-checking with online listings often ties the van to an identifiable commercial activity.

The file then breaks the powerlessness: administrative fines, complaint, invoicing of removal, and a rapid deterrent effect on the treated sites, as technical services regularly note. The economics are straightforward: a single organised dumper can cost a municipality more in yearly clean-ups than the whole investigation that stops him, and the invoice for removal, once a name is attached to it, has a way of ending the habit for good.

Where is the line with institutional inspectors?

Social bodies have their own sworn inspectors, with prerogatives we lack, file access, the right to demand information. Our place is complementary: fine-grained fieldwork, discretion, availability, and the files institutional channels cannot handle.

An institutional inspector summons, consults the files, exercises the right of communication; he does not spend six evenings establishing the actual occupancy of a house, nor follow a dumping van at dawn. Conversely, we have neither files nor summoning powers, and need neither: our material is what can be lawfully seen, dated and photographed.

Authorities that articulate the two get the best results: a report documented by our findings goes to the competent body with an already solid file, which accelerates the institutional control and secures the recovery of the undue amounts. The same pattern holds for prosecutors: a complaint accompanied by dated findings is processed quite differently from an official’s letter. In both directions, our work does not replace the institutional channel, it makes it effective.

Two typical files, anonymised

A “main residence” opening rights to a nursery place and social tariffs, in fact unoccupied for two years; a dumping site fed weekly by the same van, tied to an undeclared clearance business.

The phantom main residence. A family enjoys social tariffs and a nursery place on the strength of residence in the municipality. Six findings over eight weeks establish a house with closed shutters, an overflowing letterbox, a near-motionless meter, the family actually living in a neighbouring town. Benefits are recalculated and the undue amounts recovered, and the nursery place, a scarce resource with a waiting list, returns to a family that actually lives in the municipality.

The Sunday-evening van. A communal lane suffers weekly dumping. Three targeted observations identify the same van, its driver and its origin; online “house clearance, any distance” listings complete the evidentiary link. An administrative fine, a criminal complaint, and above all, the dumping stops at the first summons, after two years of weekly clean-ups paid by the municipality.

How much does it cost?

Public-sector assignments follow our published grid: one-off findings under administrative enquiries from €350 (excl. VAT), observation at €85/hour (excl. VAT) (degressive with volume). A prior written agreement, compatible with your purchasing procedures, free quote on description of the need.

For social landlords and authorities with regular volumes (serial occupancy controls, anti-dumping campaigns), an annual frame with a single contact and a constant report format simplifies both execution and management control.

See the full price list.

Frequently asked questions