Agenda item

Evidence from Jennifer Lewis, Community Team, Central and North West London Foundation Trust, Sunny Mehmi, Service Manager, Mental Health, LB Hillingdon

Reference was made to hoarding disorder which manifested itself in different ways. With some people it was part of their personality and choosing to hoard was a personal choice. Some people got into a pattern in life and this was how they chose to live their lives.

The Mental Health team and Social Workers got involved in cases after referrals were made from the Anti-Social Behaviour Investigations Team or the community social housing team. These cases related to residents in need of support or requiring an assessment.

There was a need to support people who hoarded and eviction would be avoided as far as possible as it was important that people remained independent in their own homes. Support consisted of dedicated advisors who helped residents with everyday tasks such as helping with household chores and organising finances and the payment of bills..

Reference was made to the Mental Health Complex Care Panel which considered cases and tried to offer support, and for individuals to retain their independence by living in their homes.

Reference was made to people being given other support such as being offered personal budgets to enable them to purchase activities to get them out of their homes. If individuals had mental health issues and they met the criteria, they were given free discretionary travel.

Reference was made to the use of the Mental Health Act to put people into detention if agencies believed that someone was putting theirs or someone else life at risk. Hoarding could be a small part of this overall mental condition and this would be subject to an assessment of the individual.

Evidence from David George, Station Manager, London Fire Brigade

The Committee was informed that if the Fire Service identified from operational incidents that there was a resident with a hoarding issue, details would be put onto a database because of the hazards sometimes posed by certain hoarding.

Reference was made to the community facing side of the force, offering to fit smoke alarms in the homes of people who were identified as collecting clutter. The service had a clutter image rating system from 1-10 and people were rated accordingly to ensure potential danger areas were identified. Anyone who was graded a "6" or over would be categorised as a high fire risk and appropriate action would be looked to be taken.

Members were informed that since the Care Act, Hoarding was considered a safeguarding issue. This was perceived as self neglect and referrals would be carried out within 24 hours.

Reference was made to the Vulnerable Persons Panel where such cases could be referred to enable various agencies to meet and discuss and offer solutions. Members were informed that in the case of hoarders, the initial action would be to visit the property to assess the fire risk. Smoke alarms could be fitted but hoarding was often a personal choice of people, a lifestyle choice and on occasions part of a person's character and a form of eccentricity.

In response to a question regarding powers of the authorities to repossess properties if there was a fire risk, Members were informed that after a fire risk assessment had taken place,  there were powers available to use, should the level of hoarding represent a danger.

The Deputy Director of Residents Services referred to a range of different legislation which the authorities could use, such as the Environmental Protection Act, Health & Safety at Works Act etc.   

Discussion took place on the use of Section 125 Notices, under the Town and Country Planning Act, which was where a local planning authority issued a Notice if the condition of the land or buildings affected the amenity of neighbours. This only applied to the front gardens of properties and not the back gardens and did not apply to the inside of properties.

The Chairman thanked the witnesses for their attendance and helping the Committee with their review.

RESOLVED –

1.  That the witnesses be thanked for the evidence they had provided as part of the review 

2. That the information provided be noted and be taken into consideration as part of the review, and on completion of the draft final report.