Elderly people suffered “harassment and fear” in sheltered housing

Archived press release

Date Published: 08/08/08

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council failed to respond to serious complaints made by two elderly residents of a sheltered housing scheme about the behaviour of the Warden.

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council failed to respond to serious complaints made by two elderly residents of a sheltered housing scheme about the behaviour of the Warden, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex. In her report, issued today (7 August 2008) she says the Council’s failures meant that the complainants suffered “harassment and fear whilst living in what should have been a supportive environment” and were forced to move away from their home town.

She says: “Far more significant than its failure to follow its own procedures is the Council’s grave substantive failure to undertake any proper investigation of serious allegations about the behaviour of an employee in a position of responsibility for vulnerable people and its inaction in the face of very persuasive evidence of serious problems at the sheltered scheme. This was maladministration with potentially very serious consequences.” 

Two residents in their sixties (called Mr P and Mrs S  in the report) were neighbours in a sheltered housing scheme owned by the Council and managed by South Tyneside Homes, an Arms Length Management Organisation. Mr P is also disabled. They complained that the Council had failed to protect them from being bullied, harassed, intimidated, publicly humiliated and abused by the Warden, and had failed to protect them from her or deal with their complaints about her. 

The Council did not respond properly to complaints about these issues. Some months later, Council officers dealing with Mr P on indirectly-related issues were so concerned about how distressed and anxious he was that a Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) alert was raised. Although the Council’s policy says that a POVA investigation should be completed in 15 days, meetings meandered on for over six months. During that time the Council failed to get to grips with the allegations about the Warden’s behaviour. 

These allegations included that the Warden was restricting resident’s use of the communal laundry to one ‘slot’ per week and using it for her own purposes the rest of the time. Mr P and Mrs S presented compelling evidence to the meetings of the threats and abuse that they were experiencing. This evidence includes a tape-recording of threats made to Mr P by the Warden’s daughter. The Ombudsman’s investigator describes this as ‘harrowing’ and deeply distressing, even when heard long after the event and in a safe setting. 

Bizarrely, whilst failing to deal with the very serious allegations made by Mr P and Mrs S, the Council responded by:

• changing the locks on their flats;
• deploying an additional employee to ensure that they could use the communal laundry one afternoon a week;
• agreeing to pay to plumb in washing machines that Mr P and Mrs S bought for their own flats;
• giving Mr P and Mrs S a senior manager’s personal mobile telephone number so they could make contact in an emergency;
• temporarily moving Mr P and Mrs S into a hotel; and
• rehousing Mr P and Mrs S.

Almost a year after he had first complained to the Chief Executive, Mr P contacted her again pointing out that the Council’s failure to take action about the Warden was forcing him and Mrs S to move from their homes. 

The Ombudsman’s investigation was into the way that the Council dealt with Mr P and Mrs S’s complaints and not into the original allegations about the Warden (who could not be interviewed as she was absent from work due to illness throughout the investigation). The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to:

• act in accordance with its policy on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults;
• operate its Corporate Complaints Procedure effectively;
• undertake any proper investigation of serious allegations about the behaviour of an employee; and
• act in the face of very persuasive evidence of serious problems at the sheltered scheme.

Since receiving a draft of the Ombudsman's report, the Council has expressed regret about these events and instituted further internal enquiries into aspects of the case and into further complaints made by Mr P and Mrs S. It has also readily accepted the Ombudsman's recommendations for remedying the injustice caused by its maladministration, including paying £2,500 each to Mr P and Mrs S, paying their moving costs, and giving them priority for rehousing.

Report refs 06C18619 & 07C01489