Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Mike Mcgale
Hi
I am hoping some fellow members may be able to share some good practice or their opinion for me.
I am currently reviewing the process of control measures and the criteria used in addressing the risk from tenants and the social / criminal issues regarding operatives who visit homes in the local authority and social housing sector.
Historically this would have created a list and if seen as a risk a blanket measure would be to send two operatives ( who’s training would be in maintenance and repair ) to attend .I do not necessarily agree with this and feel a more specific measure should be adopted.
I would be very interested in how other H&S professionals etc would deal with this
Assume all the obvious factors of risk assessment are dealt with and the sticking points are as follows, how you record the nature of the risk a tenant presents
Abusive behaviour can be general or racial, is it the same? (I think not the latter being obviously illegal).
Anti social behaviour and people with learning / mental difficulties is a very subjective area, are there known set guidelines?
Should the suspected use of drugs / excessive alcohol etc by a tenant be an issue and a reported dangerous occurrence? (Via company procedures)
What if a tenant is at his or her worst just different to the majority, an example being a person who excessively locks and secures their door and acts what is deemed as strangely but not threatening .
When all the above is decided upon how is this best communicated within the realms of the data protection act to operatives and third parties etc.
I found myself concluding the individual names of people (tenants) should be withheld and only the level of suspected risk given (High /M/L, numerical levels etc) this was fine until I realised their names are on the job tickets! Oh well back to the drawing board.
Information from the social services, LA’s and anyone with more understanding of the Data protection Act most welcome.
Regards and thanks Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy
Hi Mike
You could start by asking your opertives what type of problems they have encountered, how often and the potential dangers. Once you have this info you may want to look at worst case scenario and the likelihood. The control measure may be something as simple as employing people experienced in dealing with members of the public or dealing with complaints but do make sure you get information from your staff on potential risks.They will almost certainly come up with a solution
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Personal belief: Personnel safety over-rides data protection considerations.
It is in my opinion a proper use of data to allow your personnel to make judgments regarding their own safety.
This would doubtless fail to stand up in a court though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
I certainly believe that there is a need to record relevant risk information and to share this with other staff required to visit such tenants. I can recall, as the H&S Officer, being asked by Social Services to visit a couple of tenants with regard to their concern as to the condition of the premises (which, incidentally, were in an unsafe condition and also presented a health and fire risk). Upon my return and reporting back to the Social Worker, I was asked how I 'got on' as, when they had last visited, one of the tenants had threatened them with a knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Amanda
Mike
I work in Social Housing and we operate a Potential Violent Residents List with warning markers on the address.
Firstly we have the policy (Zero tolerance) and procedures to communicate with the staff. We also have a report of violence/abuse form and log all incidents. We also provide Conflict management training and Personal Safety training to all staff you come into contact with residents and staff.
Other colleagues are right that personal safety comes before Data Protection, however you must abide by the principles of the Data Protection Act and ensure you do not breach individuals rights.
Hope this helps and good luck in implementing your safety measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Hi Mike,
doubling up can sometimes just be a way of doubling the body count; if sending in two people is to be offered as a solution, then the solution needs to be properly worked out; i.e. in what way will two people reduce the risk, how will the two people work together to minimise risk and so on.
There is some excellent material on working with people with LD, try the BILD website, and many HAs either specialise in LD or have operational arms which do; try Johny Johnson or New Dimensions for example,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Oh, and while I'm about it, get on one of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust's personal protection seminars; absolutely brilliant,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
I'd support the Suzy Lamplugh suggestion too. They also do a few videos that I've used from time to time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
A persons data protection is secondary to a persons health and safety - If a person [employee] is likely to be at risk they should know that they are likely to be at risk and who is likely to create the hazard
Try arguing the opposit in a court - and I am confident that you will lose[in my experience [>30 years] in H&S etc]
There are many true and honest ways of providing adequate information to your employees -its just that you have to 'bite the bullet' and go ahead and do it; noting that 'others' will fight tooth and nail not to give you adequate info
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.