Recurring concern

Failure to ensure safe accommodation after discharge from mental health care

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 31 Oct 2014•Latest report 9 Mar 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in planning, securing, assessing, coordinating or providing accommodation for people being discharged from psychiatric or other mental-health care, including unsafe or unsuitable accommodation, inadequate accommodation support before discharge, and failure to ensure that the proposed accommodation can safely meet relevant mental-health or substance-misuse needs.

Not included

  • Excludes general housing shortages, homelessness or accommodation failures where no mental-health discharge context is identified.
  • Excludes generic discharge-planning, family-communication, medication-transfer and post-discharge follow-up failures where accommodation safety or provision is not the unsafe condition.
  • Excludes failures to provide care packages, placements or community mental-health treatment after safe accommodation has been secured, unless the accommodation arrangement itself remains deficient.
  • Excludes prison-release accommodation, care-home placement and ordinary hospital discharge accommodation concerns unless the assertion specifically concerns discharge from mental-health care.
Reports
5

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
6

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
3

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department of Health and Social Care1
Horsham District Council1
Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust1
North Devon District Council1
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust1
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Devon, Plymouth and Torbay

    AI-generated summary

    Taylor Malcolm Maddox · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Taylor Malcolm Maddox, who had a history of mental health illness and previous suicide attempts, was found unresponsive in his car on 9 April 2024 after leaving short-term accommodation and indicating he intended to sleep in the car. The inquest concluded that he had taken his own life by overdosing on painkilling medication. The principal concerns were delays and difficulties in securing suitable accommodation for psychiatric patients leaving hospital, and an assessment process that did not adequately account for psychiatric vulnerability and the effects of unstable housing.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide timely and effective accommodation support for psychiatric hospital discharge patients in North Devon

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Patients awaiting discharge from psychiatric hospital in North Devon are not being supported in a timely and effective way to assist them secure accommodation. ”

    Source location

    Taylor Malcolm Maddox · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Develop and secure approval for a joint, time-bounded psychiatric discharge protocol defining roles, hand-offs, escalation triggers and named workers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “While we consider the Council’s actions complied with law and guidance and reflected good practice by the case officer (including sustained out-of-hours or on leave work), we will take the opportunity to strengthen our joint arrangements with NHS partners. We therefore propose to:”

    Source location

    2026-0136 - Response from North Devon Council
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Pilot a rent-deposit fast-track using a checklist and same-day verification route for clinically urgent hospital discharges.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “While we consider the Council’s actions complied with law and guidance and reflected good practice by the case officer (including sustained out-of-hours or on leave work), we will take the opportunity to strengthen our joint arrangements with NHS partners. We therefore propose to:”

    Source location

    2026-0136 - Response from North Devon Council
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Timely and effective housing support was provided to the patient during the psychiatric discharge pathway.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our records show sustained, timely and effective engagement, including out-of-hours work by the case officer, continuous liaison with NHS colleagues, and a care plan consistent with NHS clinical advice (avoid B&B; pursue shared accommodation). Where the client found a room, we promptly took the steps needed to release rent-deposit assistance; however, we cannot lawfully commit public funds without (a) suitability/affordability checks and (b) minimum information (address/landlord/payment route).”

    Source location

    2026-0136 - Response from North Devon Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Deposit or rent-in-advance payments could not be released without required affordability, suitability and landlord verification information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our records show sustained, timely and effective engagement, including out-of-hours work by the case officer, continuous liaison with NHS colleagues, and a care plan consistent with NHS clinical advice (avoid B&B; pursue shared accommodation). Where the client found a room, we promptly took the steps needed to release rent-deposit assistance; however, we cannot lawfully commit public funds without (a) suitability/affordability checks and (b) minimum information (address/landlord/payment route).”

    Source location

    2026-0136 - Response from North Devon Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Housing assistance depended on applicants and partner agencies providing the information required to process support lawfully.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We believe timely and effective support was provided during the discharge pathway. The Council fulfilled its assessment, Relief Duty, and reasonable steps requirements, and worked proactively with the NHS. Where payment of a deposit/Rent in Advance was requested, we acted promptly but were law-bound to complete affordability and verification checks before releasing public funds. Our records show that repeated follow-ups were undertaken by the case officer, out of hours, whilst on annual leave and weekdays for one day when the officer was poorly. Mr Maddox had been assessed as having capacity to complete these tasks. We would like it also to be taken into consideration that our Housing Officers hold a large caseload, often in excess of 40 households, and we have to rely on applicants providing the information.”

    Source location

    2026-0136 - Response from North Devon Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The case did not demonstrate an absence of timely housing support or active needs assessment causing the adverse mental-health outcome.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We agree with the public-health principle expressed. The Council’s practice and actions in this case were aimed precisely at mitigating relapse risk: we worked with clinicians, avoided placements known to aggravate mental ill-health, accepted the Relief Duty, and moved at pace to underwrite a room subject to minimal but necessary checks. We must also ensure that public funds are used lawfully and sustainably, which is why affordability and verification are required before deposits/rent in advance are released. Those checks are part of ensuring that any placement is suitable and sustainable, thereby reducing relapse risk rather than deferring it.”

    Source location

    2026-0136 - Response from North Devon Council
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 March 2026

    Open published response

  2. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Neil Peter Bastock · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Neil Peter Bastock, who had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and previous suicide attempts and self-harm, died by suicide on 20 September 2021. The report raises concerns about rescinding his detention without family involvement or a formal capacity assessment, inadequate care planning and continuity, failures to respond to warning signs after he became a voluntary patient, and failure to notify police when he left the ward.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to establish alternative accommodation and transition arrangements before discharge consideration

    Wider context from the report

    “3. When the section was rescinded, Mr Bastock became a voluntary patient on the ward. In the three days following 17 September 2020, various factors should have triggered a need to reconsider the decision, including: a) Mr Bastock left the ward on occasions and once did not return until 5am. b) On his return, there was no recorded evaluation of his situation and what action was required from the team treating him. c) A family member voiced concern that he was unwell and was not ready to be discharged, yet this warning was not heeded. d) Another family member reported that he had gone to his former partner (whom he had not seen for several years) to give her £250 he had withdrawn from a cash machine for his children. The possibility that this act amounted to a farewell gesture was noted in the nursing record, but its significance was not sufficiently considered. e) Mr Bastock had indicated he felt unable to live alone. Although a social work assessment had taken place, no plan in relation to alternative accommodation had materialised. In the absence of such transition infrastructure, it was premature to consider him for discharge from the section. f) When Mr Bastock left the ward, there was a failure to notify the police of him as a missing person, given his suicide risk (irrespective of whether this complied with the prevailing missing person's policy stipulated timescales). ”

    Source location

    Neil Peter Bastock · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Rescinding detention was not premature discharge because the patient agreed to remain in hospital informally; discharge was not imminent.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “e. Mr Bastock had indicated he felt unable to live alone. Although a social work assessment had taken place, no plan in relation to alternative accommodation had materialised. In the absence of such transition infrastructure, it was premature to consider him for discharge from the section.”

    Source location

    2021-0365-Response-from-Leeds-and-York-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 6 · response
    Published 4 November 2021

    Open published response

  3. West Sussex

    AI-generated summary

    James Kenneth Herbertson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    James Kenneth Herbertson took his own life after being struck by a train near Crawley train station on 10 April 2019. Concerns included unsuitable discharge accommodation and failures to recognise and act on signs of a mental health relapse, including not referring him to the crisis team or providing additional support.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide safe and therapeutic post-discharge accommodation

    Wider context from the report

    “c) The accommodation offered to James both on leaving hospital (and subsequently) was not a safe and therapeutic environment for a person who had recognised mental health difficulties with a history of alcohol and substance misuse. Whilst accommodation is a matter for the Local Authority the Trust staff work with partner agencies in the planning for a S17 discharge. ”

    Source location

    James Kenneth Herbertson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provision of accommodation that is not a safe and therapeutic environment

    Wider context from the report

    “c) The accommodation offered to James both on leaving hospital (and subsequently) was not a safe and therapeutic environment for a person who had recognised mental health difficulties with a history of alcohol and substance misuse. Whilst accommodation is a matter for the Local Authority the Trust staff work with partner agencies in the planning for a S117 discharge. ”

    Source location

    James Kenneth Herbertson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Accommodation access and organisation were considered the Local Authority’s responsibility, although Trust staff assisted with referrals and discharge planning.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “c) Accommodation on discharge was not safe or therapeutic for a person who had a recognised mental health difficulty. Whilst accommodation is a matter for the Local Authority the trust staff work with partner agencies in planning for 117 discharge.”

    Source location

    2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
    Page 6 · response
    Published 24 March 2021

    Open published response

  4. Bedfordshire and Luton

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Matthew Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Mr Matthew Jones, who had paranoid schizophrenia and polysubstance misuse, was discharged from hospital to minimally supported temporary accommodation and suffered a cardiac arrest shortly afterwards; his death was attributed to cocaine toxicity. The report identified concerns about inadequate training and poor coordinated, multi-agency working, including insufficient attention to housing in hospital discharge planning.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to include housing in hospital discharge planning

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence at the Inquest, the evidence revealed: (i) an absence of appropriate training for clinicians and healthcare workers involved in the delivery of mental health services who have responsibility for the care of persons subject to Community Mental Health Treatment Orders (linked to Mental Health Treatment Requirement Care-Plans including treatment by Drug & Alcohol Services); and, as a result, (ii) a poor appreciation, including a lack of co-ordinated and multi-agency working, by such clinicians and healthcare workers of the likely risks of non-compliance with treatment linked to Community Mental Health Treatment Orders, and, particularly, of the importance of ensuring that ‘housing’ is part of any hospital discharge planning. ”

    Source location

    Mr Matthew Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The local NHS is responsible for reviewing the case circumstances and taking necessary action to ensure services are safe and high quality.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Organisations commissioning and delivering services are expected to take the recommendations within NICE clinical guidelines into account when planning and delivering services. We expect the local NHS to look closely at the circumstances of this case and to take action where necessary to ensure services are safe and of high quality.”

    Source location

    2019-0187-Response-by-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 August 2019

    Open published response

  5. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    CHRISTOPHER TOKE AJAYI · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Christopher Toke Ajayi, who had schizo-affective disorder and insulin-dependent type II diabetes, was discharged into unsupported accommodation and was found decomposed there on 17 September 2012 after apparently receiving no professional or carer visits for about a month. The report identified concerns about discharge planning, lack of supported accommodation and GP care, failures to communicate his medical needs, and failure to follow up missed appointments, medication and insulin treatment. The inquest found the cause of death to be hyperosmolar non-ketotic coma associated with diabetes mellitus, with neglect contributing.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to secure appropriate accommodation and care support at discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “Mr Ajayi was aged 45 when he died. He had a long history of mental illness and a forensic history. He suffered with severe mental illness with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia in 1989 which was amended to schizo-affective disorder in 2002. He was a wanderer and also not always compliant with medication. He was single and had little or no contact with his family in the time leading up to his death. In the last hospital admission before his death he was diagnosed with HONK – Hyperosmolar non-Ketotic coma. This means his blood sugar was high. He now required insulin to control his diabetes and he was, when discharged, to administer this to himself twice a day. On the 9th August 2012 there was a discharge planning meeting at the Maudsley (his last hospital admission). His Care Coordinator attended. It was known by then, because of his poor history of being non-compliant, that he would be being discharged with a Community Treatment Order in place. His named Care Coordinator does not seem to recall much about this meeting but has acknowledged that he would have been told that Mr Ajayi was now insulin dependent. From thereon, it appears that nothing of value was done in relation to Mr Ajayi's discharge planning. He was eventually discharged, wrongly, into unsupported accommodation with no care package, where no GP was caring for him and no Diabetic nurse aware of his discharge. Whilst his named Care Coordinator was on leave his colleague, another Care Coordinator, equally did not ensure everything was in place. Both argued that as Mr Ajayi was placed by Southwark Council, after discharge, into accommodation out of the borough, that militated, practically, in relation to them visiting post discharge. No one was to visit him. To use the words that Counsel for the family used, this group of staff (Care Coordinators) carry an enormous responsibility. The job must be carried out with great diligence and care. Staff must be of the right calibre, and have the right training, and support, to carry out their tasks well. The evidence revealed that these members of staff have a high degree of delegation imposed upon them. They are dealing with probably the most vulnerable people in society. It cannot be uncommon for a mentally unwell person to be discharged from hospital whilst suffering from a physical condition. One impinges on the other when that person is required to self-administer life-saving treatment to themselves. Therefore, they are particularly vulnerable. I acknowledge that patients such as Mr Ajayi, who frequently disengage with treatment, can only have their risk of harm/death reduced, not eliminated. However, this case highlighted so very many missed opportunities, mainly within the department of Care Coordinators. I have heard some evidence about resources impinging upon matters. Certainly, in this case, the accommodation which would be available for an individual such as Mr Ajayi (who was on the Sexual Offender's list as well as having the problems cited above), is, and was, limited. However, this report is not concerning that issue. It concerns the ability of this group of staff to carry out their jobs ensuring the lowest possible risk to their users as can be achieved. If necessary, Mr Ajayi should have (as would have been likely), stayed in hospital until the right discharge arrangement was in place (supported accommodation or unsupported with an intensive package of care). The caring element of the Care Coordinator role was missing. I am assured that the team that was responsible for Mr Ajayi's community care have developed a more structured multi-disciplinary approach including monitoring of 7 day follow up and I am told is robustly monitored in respect of compliance with the seven day follow up), and the identification of high risk patients such as Mr Ajayi. I am further assured that discharge planning is expected to be comprehensively and carefully planned before discharge. Sadly, I did not find this evidence reflected in the Care Coordinators' evidence. I have not been shown any audit figures to prove that changes have been checked as in action comprehensively, and the evidence was not impressive in relation to changes within this particular department. No re-training was evident. Both Care Coordinators were experienced and both also knew Mr Ajayi and his history, albeit not acting upon his new diagnosis. The evidence as a whole came across as still a service dealing with extremely vulnerable members of the public, where crucial decisions and follow up impinge directly on those individual's well-being, as well as others in the community. There appears to have been no root and branch overhaul of the department. Further, there was inconsistent evidence as to supervision, which in itself, would only account for supervisory control over some users of the service, at that particular time. I have concerns that the named Care Coordinator told me that his supervision was two weekly, where his manager told me it was monthly. Other than more supervision, I am struggling to find any other tangible changes that I am sure have been made, to prevent this group of staff from allowing the same circumstances to occur again. ”

    Source location

    CHRISTOPHER TOKE AJAYI · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review housing and community-support needs with partners for patients managing physical health independently in the community.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Partnership working around social care and support: discussions are currently underway reviewing housing and community support needs for patients to appropriately address physical health once living independently in the community”

    Source location

    2014-0558-Response-by-South-London-and-Maudsley-NHS-Trust
    Page 7 · response
    Published 31 October 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    There are no systemic problems with discharge and community follow-up for patients with complex mental and physical health needs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust acknowledges that important lessons have been learnt from this specific case that are being taken forward in improving integrated working; the Trust is otherwise confident that there is no systemic problems with regard to discharge and community follow up of similar patients with complex mental and physical health problems.”

    Source location

    2014-0558-Response-by-South-London-and-Maudsley-NHS-Trust
    Page 8 · response
    Published 31 October 2014

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026