Hi all,

given that hse is concerned with 144 deaths per year, and looking to reduce in each area, watching channel4 news, tonight, what are your thoughts on 597 people per year dying on the streets as a number, and what responsibilities fit where?

what will come out of it in terms of duties falling upon employers/ landowners?  

Hi Stuart,

Thanks for raising this.

Homelessness is a big deal for my employer; in fact it's probably what they are best known for even though they actually do much more. It's an absolute scandal that people are living and dying on the streets. We are told that this is because they are 'difficult' people with 'complex' needs and that there are no easy solutions. I cry bull; people have always been in crisis and have always been difficult with complex needs, but they didn't end up on the streets in these numbers twenty years ago.

We offer medium-term packages in most of our Lifehouses, we do try and help people into permanent accommodation, and for some people it works. We have quite a few deaths, sometimes for the causes Mark has mentioned, sometimes because many years living a chaotic life takes its toll on the body in other ways; we have a lot of COPD for example. We investigate all the unexpected deaths, and by doing so have made a significant impact on the death rate; its also a way of paying respects to the dead.

It could be anybody in these troubled times, we all need to think about it when we're tucking into our turkey (or vegan sarnies in my case) next Tuesday,

John

Edited by user 21 December 2018 15:56:24(UTC)  | Reason: Prose improvements

There are many complex social issues associated with homelessness and I am not convinced that can be just be put down to political dogma, which has failed to tackle the issue for decades. Indeed, I recall as a young lad reading about Centre Point being left vacant in the 60's and 70's. I could never rationalise why anyone would build a beautiful building only to leave it vacant for many years when people were living on the streets.

In my last role working for a LA we had at one stage 300 families living in temporary accommodation which was costing the Authority a fortune. There is not enough social housing partly because so many have been sold off as 'right to buy' as housing stocks dwindle faster than new homes are built. Of course, many of those seeking accommodation are not the indigenous population...which is being squeezed due to the pressure of finding people homes.  

Don't know what the answer is but I am not convinced just throwing money at the problem will solve it either. Even if it did, there is only so much money to go round for other important elements such as care for the elderly, NHS, policing, etc.

John, I would be more delighted if the the £14 Billion the government give away in so-called foreign aid was redirected to help the homeless...but it 'aint gonna happen. 

Home Office yesterday - "concern that it is only a matter of time before people lose their lives" re migrants crossing the Channel.

So can we now expect an announcement of multiple "major incidents" associated with homelessness in England? [devolved so it would probably not be a UK announcement]

AK, alcohol and drugs are not the cause of rough sleeping. Many hundreds of thousands of people use illegal drugs while holding down jobs, running businesses and the like. Many millions use alcohol, even alcohol dependency doesn't by any means always stop people enjoying the benefits of a settled working life.

Rough sleepers and their lifestyles are not the cause of rough sleeping. Rough sleeping has increased in line with reductions in central government expenditure on social welfare programmes, here and in other 1st world countries. To me it seems to be too much of a coincidence.

Ending homelessness is one thing, and that is very complex. Ending rough-sleeping is a different matter,

John

Edited by user 02 January 2019 16:20:42(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

My limited experience of talking to rough sleepers seems to confirm what Mark has said.  A significant number live like this because they would rather have their “freedom” to take drugs/alcohol by living on the street rather than go into the “system”.

Many have mental health problems, and have difficulty fitting into mainstream society.

The questions are:

• Who takes responsibility for looking after them?
• What should we be providing them with?
• What level of coercion should we be applying to them if they decided to be outside the system?  

Cuts in social support have not helped. Mental health provision is non-existent, in many parts of the country.  

Social housing is in itself not a solution for such clients. Councils can all tell of clients who as soon as they are given keys to a property, strip it of everything: cabling, copper pipes boilers etc .Some even take out floor boards and staircases. Councils are very reluctant to rent out their remaining stocks to anybody other families who will look after the properties not wreck them.

The way we work is now very different; in the good old days there were lots of casual jobs in factories and the like where people could pick up work and earn enough to keep a roof over their heads. (Housing was cheaper in those days as well)

Now business are expected to be “lean” and to be able to justify every employee’s role. They recruit people who have CV’s and qualifications and DBS checks.  Society is much more regulated now.

This means it is much easier to drop out of the system and once you are out it is very difficult to get back in.

But overall there are no simple solutions which:

• Don’t cost a lot of money- supporting rough sleepers is not a vote winner
• Provide long term solutions as oppose to just tidying up the problem
• And don’t involve a significant level of coercion to get people to conform

As I said, a classic “wicked” problem.

Why does IOSH allows its forum to be abused by bleeding-heart liberals on a topic of no relevance to OSH? This typical nonsensical blathering that blames it all on the "cruel Tories" belongs on the Guardian website, not here.

Hilary - Adopting ERICPD sytem to control the risks to employers / landlords - should they then ensure that the homeless individual is moved on and eliminate the risk of being sued.

Who would be taking the employer / landlord to court and on what basis does the employer / landlord have a duty of care to the homeless person, how was this breached and how can anyone prove that this breach resulted in the loss - I can't see how any of the 3 could be proven in any court of law!?!

Thanks Hilary for bringing this back on subject.

Most public doorways in city centres are as safe as practicable for their designed and intended purpose as a means of access to and egress from a building. They are not designed nor intended to be sleeping booths.

Regarding an employer it would be hard to see any association with, or duties toward, an unemployed rough sleeper.

Premises occupiers would have liabilities for unintended persons present but this comes down to forseeable risk and control (e.g. means to prevent intruders). Where such controls are deliberatley by-passed it would be highly unlikley the owner/occupier would face prosecution e.g. the fire deaths of "Popeye and Uncle Albert" in a derelict Manchesters China Town building November 2016.

I have not seen any occupier encouraging doorways to be blocked inviting liability and note those who choose to activley discourage rough sleepers with devices suffer a hue & cry e.g. Installation of a slope to the Bank of England steps Liverpool November 2016.

It seems owner/occupiers are damned if they don't and damned if they do but appear to have no liability to those of no fixed abode in public spaces.

Some interesting points made. I don't agree with the stance taken by jonc - surely one of the reasons most of us went into this profession was to help protect people from illness and injury? To decry discussion of anything outside the workplace suggests a blinkered approach to health and safety, although I appreciate that homelessness is a complex issue, with varying reasons for living 'off the grid', and with no simple answers.

I think AK makes a good point - the provision of mental health services in England is, in my experience, woefully under-resourced and ineffective. This is ironic when there has been such an emphasis on mental health in the workplace in recent years, and until the professional services are adequately funded and focused, any work to improve mental health in society is really p***ing in the wind.

Edited by user 04 January 2019 12:01:16(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Speaking as a bleeding heart liberal (Vis jonc’s comments), I cannot see how Hilary’s suggestion, that landlords or employers can be made liable for rough sleepers on their property, could work. For a start they are trespassers and this would mean that the law about trespassers (Occupiers Liability Act 1984)   would have to change and I suppose introduce a strict liability for the safety of all trespassers, as you could not distinguish between rough sleepers, squatters or people just nicking your copper piping.  

What for would this duty take? Would the landlord have to install heating and other facilities for the homeless? These would of course have to be maintained in a safe condition etc.

Anyway why restrict this to commercial properties? Most people have spare rooms or little used rooms, why not force them to share these spaces with the homeless?

I made no suggestion that landlords or employers could be made liable, I merely attested to the fact that if anything it would be Public Liability, but there was a "maybe" in that sentence.

We  have been talking about legal position, responsibility and duty etc, it goes further than that.

This is going to sound callous as it is a bit, but putting aside the fact some poor soul has lost their life, there is likely to be significant disruption to the business. When I watch programs on the TV they tend to show people around the backs of buildings. Now obviously occupiers have a duty to make sure nothing dangerous in the area and restrict access. However, this duty may also come back on them in other ways if they don’t do what they can.

People who might die at say the rear of a building is likely to be found by an employee, who may have any number of reactions from taking in their stride to complete breakdown. I guess whoever finds them will need to call the emergency services. The exit / entrance I would assume is out of bounds until someone comes and deals with the situation doing whatever investigation and obviously taking the body away. They may then have to deal with their employees who may have been affected by this mentally.

As others have noted there is not a lot you can do about street shop entrances, but if there is a possibility of restricting access to the rear and they don’t, could this come back on them in some way? , not saying it would just wondering. Could there be a claim from an employee they are now traumatised through the occupier’s lack of action? Just musing and putting another side.

I understand that I have made this sound as if someone who dies is an inconvenience and I don’t care, but I do care. Though I don’t personally believe in a deity, every time I see a homeless person I think “there but for the grace of god there go I”. I think in this day and age it is quite easy to end up homeless through no fault of your own. Whether they chose to be homeless or by necessity, society has let them down sometime in the past, for it to get to this point.

anyone (not just rough sleepers) can "drop" dead anywhere - on the street, in the shop, on the bus, in the alcove of an emergency exit... how does such an event become an employers "trauma" liability if one of their employees has either seen this happen or comes across the scene in a public place?

If the postie dies of a heart attack delivering to my house am I suddenly liable as death occurred on my property? Do I compensate the window cleaner / milkman for the trauma of discovering the body?

Time to put away the cotton wool before we suffocate ourselves in to a stupour