Page 12 - TSAB Adult B FINAL (1)

This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

patients in the hospital.

6.8. Some of the features of the new duties on local authorities to prevent and relieve homelessness
provide robust assessment and rehousing support. Josh did not engage well with the Homeless Advice
Coordinators, therefore the provisions within the Act were limited in their usefulness for Josh. This
resulted in no Personalised Housing Plan for Josh. What he appeared to hear was that he needed to go
back to Area A or pay and provide ID. Whilst Josh was in receipt of benefits, it was later discovered that
he was in debt and therefore his benefits would not be able to provide for his housing needs (i.e. the
top up payment in addition to his housing benefit). This therefore had the effect of causing Josh to
disengage further.

6.9. There are various ways that housing staff could have been more involved in the discussions regarding
the issues that Josh was facing. As it was, there were several telephone conversations from various
other professionals to homeless services, but these were stand-alone conversations and not part of any
multi agency plan that involved housing staff. This will be picked up on in other sections below.

6.10. Had Josh been engaged further with housing, he could have been made aware that there were ways to
access ID and emergency funds that could have helped him. Again, this may have been better explained
to him by those that he had good relationships with. Josh had stated to staff when he was in hospital
that he consistently felt that people ‘fob him off’, unbeknown to housing staff, Josh’s history of early
rejection by his parents possibly meant that this was a further area in his life where he felt rejection.

6.11. It is also of note, that during the mental health unit stay, the mental health team social worker had
spent some time with Josh and had managed to secure accommodation for him. This social worker was
due to go to the new accommodation with Josh on the pre-arranged discharge date. Due to
relationships Josh had formed with other patients whilst he was on the ward, he had been warned that
the accommodation that had been suggested was used by drug addicts. Josh therefore refused to go
there. It appears that Josh was not just concerned with getting a roof over his head but also staying safe
and staying away from drugs.

6.12. Practitioners commented that the reality of the type of accommodation for young single men meant
that people with similar issues to Josh were likely to be housed in accommodation deemed suitable.
Staff felt that Josh had unrealistic expectations for the housing provision that was available and
discussed this with him.

6.13. When Josh did finally accept a tenancy, it was self-funded in Area B. This was made possible by the
consultant paying the £50. This may have provided further evidence that it was the finance that was the
stumbling block. This was not seen as an issue as his benefits were being paid regularly.

6.14. Whilst Josh was housed, he stayed out of hospital. There were successful visits from professionals,
however Josh did raise concerns regarding possible drug activities at the property. This tenancy
however soon broke down and it was not long before Josh was presenting back to hospital having taken
overdoses of insulin. It is not clear why this tenancy broke down and does not appear to have been
questioned when he presented to hospital stating that he was homeless again. It was later that Josh
said he owed rent, was in debt and could not go back. It is not clear which property this related to. The

12