Decision Date: 30 Jan 2025
Summary
The investigator found no fault in the response of the London Borough of Waltham Forest Council’s response to a complaint about the support provided to a woman exhibiting hoarding behaviour after suffering a traumatic experience and facing eviction.
What happened
Mrs C lived in privately rented property when a safeguarding concern was raised about her in late 2022.
She had lost her job and had been evicted from different properties due to her immigration status as a result of the ‘Windrush Scandal.’ She had developed hoarding behaviour and had little trust in authorities and organisations, and when Waltham Forest’s Adult Social Care team (ASC) visited her, she declined to let them enter her property or discuss the issue of hoarding.
She reported no physical or mental health needs, and the Council deemed that she had capacity to make the decision to refuse support.
By August 2023, Mrs C’s landlord had obtained a possession order for the property on the grounds of hoarding and irregular rent payments.
Mrs C with her daughter, Ms B, approached the council for assistance. Mrs C was assessed and offered assistance with drawing up a plan to tackle her hoarding and secure sheltered accommodation. However, Mrs C did not engage with the team and by February 2024 was facing eviction.
She refused an offer of sheltered accommodation as she thought that what was offered was too small. She was then assessed by the Council’s Community Activity and Recovery Team (CART) for a full Care Act Assessment, which took place on 16 January, though Mrs B refused the team entry to her home, as well as the social worker subsequently assigned to her to help identify items that could be stored or transported abroad.
The assessment concluded that Mrs C did not have any eligible care needs and that she had the capacity to make decisions. But as a preventative measure the Council had offered support with packing her belongings before the eviction.
On 30 January 2024 a meeting took place with Mrs C, Ms B, and the Council’s adult social care and housing teams, which had now made a new offer of a one bedroom sheltered accommodation which was bigger than the previous studio flat.
Mrs C said she did not trust the property offered and wanted a two-bedroom property. The Council explained the difference between general needs and sheltered housing and the likely wait times. It also said it would need medical evidence to justify the need for a second bedroom. Mrs C said she would not go to the GP.
The Council encouraged Mrs C to view the property and explained that if she turned down the property the Council would end its housing duty towards her, and she would have to find her own accommodation. Mrs C said she did not want to put her things in storage but instead wanted to send them abroad, and that she would arrange for this herself.
On 2 February 2024, the Council reported that Mrs C had no eligible care needs. She was assessed as being independent with managing the activities of daily living, and had continued to refuse permission for anyone to visit her property, including the short-term care worker the Council offered to help her organise her belongings. Ms B sent multiple emails to the Council at this time requesting assistance. The Council said it made multiple offers, but Mrs C refused any assistance.
On 12 February 2024 the Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure to a formal complaint from Ms B about the help offered to Mrs C since August 2023. It did not agree that the Council should have done a safeguarding referral in August 2023 as Mrs C was receiving support from the Housing Team and ASC. It apologised for an early help social worker not attending a meeting with HT in September 2023. It explained that In December 2023 Mrs C’s case was passed to CART for a full Care Act assessment which was why the early help case was closed. It agreed its communications on this process could have been clearer and said it would improve its procedures for the future. Ms B was unhappy with the response and escalated her complaint to stage two.
On 28 February 2024 ASC tried to visit Mrs C to discuss the impending eviction. Mrs C would not let them into the flat. She said she was aware of the eviction and did not want any help with her belongings. ASC also offered to visit the new flat with her and discuss any problems, but Mrs C declined. The next day she was evicted. The Council received a video from inside the flat which showed high levels of hoarding. Ms B was offered support by the Adult Social Care team to sort through the unwanted items from her flat. This was refused, as were the Council’s suggestion of a meeting. At their next case review in mid-March the Council concluded that there was little they could do other than offer early help support.
On 4 April 2024 the Council sent Ms B a further response to her complaint. It said Mrs C has capacity; she had fully participated in and contributed to the assessment, which concluded she had no eligible care needs, and it also set out Mrs C’s refusal of various offers of assistance. The Council also responded to an MP’s enquiry on 5 April 2024 repeating its view on the situation. It said that with Mrs C’s consent it could liaise with Mrs C’s ex-landlord to arrange a timetable for Mrs C to collect her belongings. It provided a link for local welfare assistance for furniture for the new sheltered accommodation.
On 9 April 2024 ASC again referred Mrs C to her GP for a mental health review.
Mrs C had a health-related incident which caused a deterioration in her physical health. The Council agreed to refer her back to ASC for another assessment. Mrs C was also allocated a mental health social worker to carry out a mental health assessment, and an advocate was appointed, as well as a care package.
Ms B complained to the Ombudsman in early June 2024 on her mother’s behalf. She alleged that the Council failed to:
- carry out an adequate assessment of Mrs C’s care needs;
- carry out any assessment of her hoarding compulsion or offer any support;
- act on reports that Mrs C was without hot water, heating or a functioning toilet;
- offer any support with moving her belongings either before or after she was evicted;
- provide any support for Mrs C on the day of the eviction;
- provide any assistance with furnishing the sheltered accommodation;
- respond to any safeguarding referrals from Ms B or third parties such as her GP, or advocate; or
- explain to Ms B or Mrs C that the early help support was ending because the ‘CART’ team was taking over the case
What was found
No fault was found by the Investigator.
- The Council had carried out an adequate assessment of Mrs C’s care needs. The Council carried out several assessments, and their offers of assistance were rebuffed by Mrs C. No fault was found.
- The Council did not fail to carry out an assessment of Mrs C’s hoarding. It offered support and assistance with her belongings once she was evicted. The effectiveness of their assistance was compromised by Mrs C refusing entry to her flat and not engaging with support offered. No fault was found.
- The Council did not fail to act on reports that Mrs C had no heating, hot water, or functioning toilet. The Council tried to arrange help for Mrs C in 2023 and 2024, but she would not permit visitors to enter her flat. No fault was found.
- Mrs C was offered support around her eviction. It was not routine for the Council to intervene on the day of eviction, though the Council visited her the day before and had previously offered an alternative property to her. No fault was found.
- Contrary to Ms B’s complaint, the Council visited Mrs C various times in response to safeguarding referrals and had contacted her GP on several occasions for mental health assessments. No fault was found.
- The Council acknowledged that the explanation around the ‘CART’ team taking over Mrs C’s case could have been clearer and apologised, but that was found not to constitute a loss of service. No fault was found.
The Investigator concluded that there was no fault causing injustice to Ms B or Mrs C.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
This case highlights the large number of professionals involved in hoarding matters, from adult social care staff, housing teams, and mental health professionals. Landlords may also feel that they only have very blunt instruments available to them, such as possession proceedings and evictions. It also demonstrates the difficulty in balancing an individual’s autonomy and safeguarding, and the complex and unique considerations that often arise in hoarding cases.
Useful guidance for local authorities and people using care services dealing with hoarding was set out by the High Court in AC and GC [2022] EWCOP 39.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 005 268) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!