Agenda item

To consider information in relation to this scrutiny topic from the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Adults, Health and Wellbeing directorate.

The first evidence-gathering session for the Committee’s review of Protection of Property considered initial information from the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Adults, Health and Wellbeing directorate.  Presented by officers from the SBC Adult Social Care department, information included:

·       Legal definitions interpretation: The Council had a duty (under Section 47 of the Care Act 2014) to protect movable property where statutory conditions were met.  This applied when an adult was having needs for care and support met in a way that involved the provision of accommodation or had been admitted to hospital (or both), there was a danger of loss or damage to the adult's movable property, the adult was unable (either temporarily or permanently) to protect or deal with the property, and no suitable arrangements had been made by others to safeguard the property.

·       Reasonable steps: The Act did not define ‘reasonable steps’, though in practice, this meant proportionate actions necessary to prevent foreseeable loss or damage.  Examples may include the securing of doors and windows, removing valuables and important documents to safe storage, arranging disposal of perishable items, ensuring utility issues or obvious hazards were addressed, and liaising with family, attorneys, deputies, or landlords.  Section 47 permitted actions that were reasonably necessary to prevent or mitigate loss or damage.

·       Movable property: Although not specifically defined within the Act, guidance provided to staff involved possessions that could be moved and were not part of the land or building.  Examples include removal of money and financial documents, jewellery / medals / watches, furniture and personal belongings, legal documents (such as wills and funeral plans), and household contents.  Visiting officers provided intervention necessary to protect the individual's interests, and were given guidance on what actions should be taken.  However, for some items, the visiting officer needed to make a judgement on what was valuable.

·       Identification of eligible individuals: Referrals were mainly from adult social work teams and, occasionally, health partners, with eligibility dependent on property risk and absence of other alternative suitable arrangements.  An individual may fall within Section 47 where they had been admitted to hospital and could not manage their home, or they had moved (permanently or temporarily) into residential or nursing care, lacked capacity (or were otherwise unable to decide themselves), and there was no family member, attorney, deputy or other representative able and willing to protect the property.

·       Support provided: The Council would arrange to gain authorised access to the property and ensure keys were secured (locks may be changed where necessary).  Initial visits were made to take inventories and photographs of the property, checking any required maintenance and identifying any risks.  The Adult Social Care Financial Services (ASCFS) team would address any repairs and see that valuables and documents were removed and stored securely in a designated safe.  The visiting officers would record all actions for audit purposes (note: there was currently no system to capture this work, therefore folders on word documents, desktops and spreadsheets were utilised).  Where possible, visiting officers would try to obtain consent when possessions had been removed and would seek authorisation to liaise with family members regarding disposable of remaining contents.  Following death of an individual who was having their property protected, the team would transfer items to executors who were next of kin.

·       How long does the support continue: The legislation does not specify timescales, and support would normally continue until:

o   the adult resumed responsibility for their affairs

o   family, attorney or deputies took over arrangements

o   risk of loss or damage no longer existed

o   the property was emptied or disposed of appropriately

o   the person dies and items were transferred to their estate

·       ASCFS capacity: The team covered a wide range of work (including management of appointee, court appointed deputy, deceased estates, and public funerals), and consisted of (full-time equivalent numbers in brackets) a Team Lead (1), Clerks (2.5), Finance Officer (0.8), Social Care Officers (1.5), Visiting Officers (2).  The team currently managed 17 unoccupied properties and eight rented properties.

·       Data on costs associated with this support: To be provided at the next evidence session for this review.

·       How does the Council promote / raise awareness of this duty?: This was done through a combination of operational practice, professional networks, and staff development activities, with health partners made aware of the service and its referral pathways.  Awareness was raised internally through staff training, professional guidance and learning events, including sessions delivered as part of the ‘Festival of Learning’.  The service was also supported by adult social care policies and procedures, which provided guidance to practitioners on when referrals should be made (note: as part of a review of these policies and procedures, the Council was considering opportunities to further strengthen awareness of this service, including refreshed guidance, communication materials, and engagement with key organisations).

The service benefitted from close working relationships with hospital discharge teams, social workers, and other professionals who may identify individuals requiring support to protect their property.  Information was shared as part of case discussions, safeguarding and operational forums, and practitioner networks to ensure staff understood the Council's responsibilities and referral arrangements.  This helped ensure vulnerable adults who met the criteria were identified at the earliest opportunity.

·       Service evaluation – has it developed over time; is feedback sought from those whose property has been protected?: The service had developed over time in response to increasing number of cases and the need to ensure compliance with Section 47 of the Care Act 2014.  Processes had been strengthened to include detailed inventories, photographic records, secure storage arrangements for valuables, and clear audit trails of action taken.  The service also worked closely with social work teams, health partners, attorneys, deputies, executives, and family members (where appropriate).

At present, formal feedback from individuals whose properties had been protected was limited, as many people receiving the service may lack capacity, be in hospital, have moved to long-term care, or be deceased before the intervention was completed.  Informal feedback was received from people who used this service, family members, legal representatives, and professionals involved in cases.  The service recognised the value of capturing feedback more systematically and would consider opportunities to develop a proportionate service evaluation process as part of the ongoing review of policies and procedures.

In response to the information provided, the Committee sought further detail on what happened when an individual, whilst having their property protected, passed away.  Officers highlighted several actions, with an initial effort being to establish whether the person had a will or next of kin.  If neither could be identified, social media appeals may take place, work could be initiated with genealogy companies, and a public health funeral may be required – however, this could all take significant time.  It was emphasised that the Council did not wait for someone to die before trying to understand an individual’s situation, with research commencing as soon as they began with the service.

On a wider level, it was noted that other Council departments (e.g. Environmental Health, Facility Services, Housing Services (Empty Homes Team)) were also involved as part of the local offer and, in reply to a further Committee query, it was confirmed that the weekly visits to properties were recorded.  Members also asked if the best practice factsheets (referenced within the ASCFS webpage) could be shared with the Committee.

Noting differences in the way owner-occupied and rented properties were managed (either selling a property or ending a tenancy), it was stated that the team had established relationships with the larger local housing associations, with some demand also coming through private landlords.

AGREED that information provided by the SBC Adults, Health and Wellbeing directorate for the Committee’s Scrutiny Review of Protection of Property be noted.