Recurring concern

Failure to secure suitable accommodation for people released from prison

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 29 Mar 2017•Latest report 27 Jan 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in arrangements specifically intended to identify accommodation needs, secure suitable accommodation, provide accommodation assistance or coordinate release accommodation for people leaving prison or custody, including Approved Premises, local-authority accommodation and post-release accommodation support.

Not included

Excludes general homelessness or housing shortages where the concern is not specifically accommodation for people released from prison.
Excludes mental-health treatment, probation reporting, drug support or other post-release services when accommodation provision is not the deficient condition.
Excludes unsuitable accommodation unrelated to release from prison or custody.
Excludes failures in release information, licence conditions or supervision where suitable accommodation is available and the accommodation-provision process is not deficient.

Reports: 6
Individual concerns: 10
Date range: 2017–2025
Stated actions: 12

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

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

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

HM Prison and Probation Service3

Ministry of Justice2

Probation Service2

Liverpool City Council1

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government1

Staffordshire Police1

Steps2Recovery1

Stoke Heath Prison1

Stoke-on-Trent City Council1

Wymott Prison1

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.

27 Jan2025
Liverpool and the Wirral
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to engage prisoners about accommodation when they cannot find housing
2. Failure to commence accommodation planning with the relevant local authority
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Discuss custodial cases without release addresses at multi-agency Prison Leavers Meetings using system-generated case lists and probation-led coordination.
  Stated by HM Prison & Probation Service, Probation Service, North WestStated completed
2. Action
  Conduct a North West resettlement review and consider the consistency of multi-agency pre-release meeting arrangements within it.
  Stated by HM Prison & Probation Service, Probation Service, North WestStated in progress
3. Action
  Provide co-located or visiting local-authority housing workers to support probation staff with prison-leaver accommodation needs and referrals.
  Stated by HM Prison & Probation Service, Probation Service, North WestStated completed
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Prison and Probation Service, not healthcare, is responsible for prisoner release and statutory housing referrals; healthcare provides treatment and collaborates.
  Stated by Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

WILLIAM CAMPBELL BISSETT · 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

William Campbell Bissett, aged 88, died by suicide by hanging in his cell at HMP Wymott on 13 October 2023, shortly before his planned release on licence. The report raised concerns about inadequate advance planning for his accommodation, insufficient engagement by prison offender management and probation services, and the failure to notify local authorities that he would be homeless on release.

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 engage prisoners about accommodation when they cannot find housing
Wider context from the report
“(2) On 23rd June 2023 Mr Bissett was informed of the terms of his licence upon release. He was informed that he would not be allowed to return home. No sufficient attempt was made to engage with Mr Bissett to discuss accommodation in the event that he was unable to find a place to live himself. ”
Source location
WILLIAM CAMPBELL BISSETT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · 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
Failure to commence accommodation planning with the relevant local authority
Wider context from the report
“(3) 56 days before release, it being clear that Mr Bissett had nowhere to go, planning for accommodation should have been commenced with Fylde Borough Council who would have the duty to provide temporary housing and who would have engaged with Mr Bissett to discuss his requirements. ”
Source location
WILLIAM CAMPBELL BISSETT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · 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
Discuss custodial cases without release addresses at multi-agency Prison Leavers Meetings using system-generated case lists and probation-led coordination.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Locally, anyone managed by the Blackpool Probation Office in custody who is without a release address is discussed at the local Prison Leavers Meetings which are attended by Probation, Prison, and the Local Authority. A list of cases for discussion at these meetings is generated from the Probation case management system – NDel ius, using the “No Fixed Abode” recorded status. The Prison Leavers Meetings are chaired by the Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) Senior Probation Officer which ensures they have insight into the pre-release work required/being undertaken by their teams in a timely manner and have the links with the housing workers to facilitate assessments and discuss need, including duty to refer situations.”

Source location
Response from HMPPS and NW Probation Service
Page 2 · response
Published 28 January 2025
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
Conduct a North West resettlement review and consider the consistency of multi-agency pre-release meeting arrangements within it.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In the North West Probation Region, I have commissioned a resettlement review and the consistency of arrangements for multi-agency pre-release meetings will be considered as part of this review.”

Source location
Response from HMPPS and NW Probation Service
Page 2 · response
Published 28 January 2025
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
Provide co-located or visiting local-authority housing workers to support probation staff with prison-leaver accommodation needs and referrals.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We also have a number of PDU’s where housing workers are co-located at our offices and early indications are that this improves working relationships and the sharing of information.”

Source location
Response from HMPPS and NW Probation Service
Page 2 · response
Published 28 January 2025
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
Prison and Probation Service, not healthcare, is responsible for prisoner release and statutory housing referrals; healthcare provides treatment and collaborates.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Prison and Probation Service are responsible for the release and any release conditions relating to prisoners and have a statutory duty to refer to the Local Authority for housing of prisoners where required. The healthcare service works collaboratively with the prison service and Offender Management Teams providing specific healthcare treatment and will attend any multidisciplinary discharge meetings put in place by the teams to enable the correct community healthcare to support release back to the community.”

Source location
Greater Manchester Mental Health
Page 2 · response
Published 28 January 2025
Open published response
11 Nov2024
West Sussex, Brighton and Hove
Concerns raised2
1. Delays in finding CAS3 accommodation after specialist placement failure
2. Failure of probation officers to understand accommodation availability when planning release
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Engage regional female leads to promote Approved Premises placements for women with complex needs who pose a medium risk of harm.
  Stated by Probation ServiceStated in progress
2. Action
  Deliver Female Approved Premises briefings for all practitioners, emphasising placements for women with complex needs who pose a medium risk of harm.
  Stated by Probation ServiceStated planned
AI-generated summary

Kirsten Hocking · 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

Kirsten Hocking, aged 31, died in hospital on 24 May 2023 as a result of a heroin overdose after being released from prison and found in a public toilet. The concerns identified included a lack of specialist rehabilitation accommodation for some women leaving prison, training needs for probation officers arranging accommodation and release plans, and unclear placement-offer and decision-making systems at a specialist accommodation charity.

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
Delays in finding CAS3 accommodation after specialist placement failure
Wider context from the report
“Concern (2) is linked to the first, in that the probation officers, who have primary responsibility for finding accommodation and building release plans, need to understand what accommodation is and is not available. This case showed that no-one, including the relevant officer, realised that an AP might in theory have been available. It also showed a failure to appreciate that once the first specialist placement fell through, a second was very unlikely to be found and so CAS3 accommodation was realistically the only option. That therefore needed finding quickly, so that a support plan could be built around it. There does therefore seem to be a training need. ”
Source location
Kirsten Hocking · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · 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
Failure of probation officers to understand accommodation availability when planning release
Wider context from the report
“Concern (2) is linked to the first, in that the probation officers, who have primary responsibility for finding accommodation and building release plans, need to understand what accommodation is and is not available. This case showed that no-one, including the relevant officer, realised that an AP might in theory have been available. It also showed a failure to appreciate that once the first specialist placement fell through, a second was very unlikely to be found and so CAS3 accommodation was realistically the only option. That therefore needed finding quickly, so that a support plan could be built around it. There does therefore seem to be a training need. ”
Source location
Kirsten Hocking · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · 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
Engage regional female leads to promote Approved Premises placements for women with complex needs who pose a medium risk of harm.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Central Approved Premises Team are currently promoting the use of community disposals with Probation Court Teams across the county – which prevent the loss of accommodation due to a period in custody. They are also engaging with regional females leads (senior probation officers) to promote the availability of placements in an Approved Premises for women with complex needs who pose a medium risk of harm. From September this year, there will be Female AP briefings for all practitioners where this exact point will be emphasised.”

Source location
Response from HMPPS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 November 2024
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
Deliver Female Approved Premises briefings for all practitioners, emphasising placements for women with complex needs who pose a medium risk of harm.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Central Approved Premises Team are currently promoting the use of community disposals with Probation Court Teams across the county – which prevent the loss of accommodation due to a period in custody. They are also engaging with regional females leads (senior probation officers) to promote the availability of placements in an Approved Premises for women with complex needs who pose a medium risk of harm. From September this year, there will be Female AP briefings for all practitioners where this exact point will be emphasised.”

Source location
Response from HMPPS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 November 2024
Open published response
5 Nov2024
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Concerns raised2
1. Lack of available suitable Approved Premises accommodation for prisoners released from custody
2. Lack of local-authority accommodation to prevent homelessness among prisoners released from custody
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Expand Approved Premises capacity to provide additional placements for people presenting the highest risks, including increased provision for women.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation Service and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Ministry of JusticeStated completed
2. Action
  Expand CAS3 transitional accommodation to support more prison leavers and supervised people at risk of homelessness.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation Service and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Ministry of JusticeStated in progress
3. Action
  Work jointly to identify and implement further measures needed to ensure prison leavers can access accommodation.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation Service and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Ministry of JusticeStated in progress
1. Action
  Lead departmental efforts to reduce prison homelessness and secure appropriate accommodation for offenders with higher support needs.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation Service and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Ministry of JusticeStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Local authorities have statutory responsibility to assist people facing homelessness and provide appropriate move-on accommodation from temporary placements.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation Service and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Ministry of JusticeRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Barrie Forster · 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

Barrie Forster was assaulted on 20 November 2020 by a person who had been released from custody two days earlier, and the inquest recorded multi-organ failure following acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage and craniofacial trauma. The report identified failures to assess the risk posed to Barrie and the suitability of the address where the perpetrator intended to live. It also raised a broader concern about inadequate accommodation for people released from custody, resulting in homelessness or placement in unsuitable premises.

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
Lack of available suitable Approved Premises accommodation for prisoners released from custody
Wider context from the report
“There is a lack of accommodation available to the Probation Service in which prisoners released from custody may properly be placed. This includes both Approved Premises (which I understand to be the responsibility of the MoJ) and more generally through the local authority to avoid homelessness. As a consequence, some prisoners are released and become effectively homeless (with increased difficulties in supervision) while others are accommodated at unsuitable premises, as happened in this instance. ”
Source location
Barrie Forster · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · 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
Lack of local-authority accommodation to prevent homelessness among prisoners released from custody
Wider context from the report
“There is a lack of accommodation available to the Probation Service in which prisoners released from custody may properly be placed. This includes both Approved Premises (which I understand to be the responsibility of the MoJ) and more generally through the local authority to avoid homelessness. As a consequence, some prisoners are released and become effectively homeless (with increased difficulties in supervision) while others are accommodated at unsuitable premises, as happened in this instance. ”
Source location
Barrie Forster · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · 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
Expand Approved Premises capacity to provide additional placements for people presenting the highest risks, including increased provision for women.

Verbatim wording from the response
“There are currently 2339 Approved Premises bed placements across England and Wales. The Approved Premises Expansion programme concluded in March 2023, delivering 169 additional spaces, 115 male and 54 female. This has enabled us to have the capacity for those presenting the very highest risks, to stay in Approved Premises (AP) for up to 12 months. We have also expanded provision for women by over 30%, increasing the opportunities for women to have a place in an AP after release, as part of a community order or as a bail placement. The closure report for the expansion project concluded that there are now an additional 40 bed space placements in the Southwest South-Central Area.”

Source location
Joint Response from HMPPS MOJ and MHCLG
Page 2 · response
Published 6 November 2024
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
Expand CAS3 transitional accommodation to support more prison leavers and supervised people at risk of homelessness.

Verbatim wording from the response
“CAS3 provides transitional accommodation for up to 84 nights for prison leavers and those moving on from CAS1 and CAS2, subject to probation supervision who would otherwise be homeless, with basic floating support to move on into settled accommodation. All prison”

Source location
Joint Response from HMPPS MOJ and MHCLG
Page 2 · response
Published 6 November 2024
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
Work jointly to identify and implement further measures needed to ensure prison leavers can access accommodation.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Evidence shows that these programmes have enabled occupants to access and remain in accommodation. However, more action is needed to ensure all prison leavers are able to access accommodation. MoJ and MHCLG are continuing to work closely together to identify and implement what is needed.”

Source location
Joint Response from HMPPS MOJ and MHCLG
Page 3 · response
Published 6 November 2024
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
Lead departmental efforts to reduce prison homelessness and secure appropriate accommodation for offenders with higher support needs.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, Lord James Timpson, will lead on driving forward the Department’s priority to reduce the number of people leaving prison homeless and ensuring that there is appropriate accommodation to support those offenders who have higher support needs.”

Source location
Joint Response from HMPPS MOJ and MHCLG
Page 3 · response
Published 6 November 2024
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
Local authorities have statutory responsibility to assist people facing homelessness and provide appropriate move-on accommodation from temporary placements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Local Authorities have statutory duties to assist people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. They work in partnership with HMPPS to ensure those placed in CAS temporary accommodation have the move-on accommodation which is appropriate to any identified risks.”

Source location
Joint Response from HMPPS MOJ and MHCLG
Page 3 · response
Published 6 November 2024
Open published response
14 Apr2023
Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of accommodation for people released from prison
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Review the Duty to Refer process to ensure referrals receive a response within three days.
  Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Work with prisons through established mechanisms, including pre-release panels, to maintain robust procedures for people released at risk of homelessness.
  Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilStated in progress
3. Action
  Work with prison-service partners to maintain a clear referral pathway explaining housing options before release, beyond the Duty to Refer mechanism.
  Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilStated in progress
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  The Council cannot offer immediate accommodation to everyone leaving custody because legal duties, accommodation shortages and resource constraints limit provision.
  Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilUnable to act
1. Position
  Central Government should be separately asked to consider legal duties for interim accommodation and funding for local authorities.
  Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Mr Darren Clifford Docherty · 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 Darren Clifford Docherty was released from HMP Stoke Heath without accommodation and was subsequently found hanging from a tree on 10 August 2023. The report raised concern that people released from prison without accommodation may be unable to access GP and community mental health services.

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
Lack of accommodation for people released from prison
Wider context from the report
“1. That when people are released from prison they do so, on many occasions, with no accommodation. Those that need GP access and community mental health services are unable to access them in these circumstances. ”
Source location
Mr Darren Clifford Docherty · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · 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 the Duty to Refer process to ensure referrals receive a response within three days.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1. We have already completed a review of the Duty to Refer process to ensure all referrals receive a response within 3 days of receipt so that prisoners due for release and their representatives in the prison service are aware they need to either approach the Housing Solutions Service within office hours or the Emergency Duty Team outside of office hours if they are released with no accommodation secured on the day of their release;”

Source location
Response from Stoke on Trent City Council
Page 5 · response
Published 29 April 2024
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
Work with prisons through established mechanisms, including pre-release panels, to maintain robust procedures for people released at risk of homelessness.

Verbatim wording from the response
“2. We will continue to work with prisons to ensure robust procedures are in place for those being released at risk of homelessness through already established mechanisms such as the pre-release panel, a joint meeting between prison based accommodation staff and the Council’s dedicated Housing Needs”

Source location
Response from Stoke on Trent City Council
Page 5 · response
Published 29 April 2024
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
Work with prison-service partners to maintain a clear referral pathway explaining housing options before release, beyond the Duty to Refer mechanism.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3. We will continue to work with partners across the prison service to ensure a clear referral pathway is in place above and beyond the Duty to Refer mechanism so that everyone has a better understanding of the housing options available before a prisoner is released, however, it must be recognised that this is unlikely to result in a firm offer of accommodation for everyone especially those that have no priority need;”

Source location
Response from Stoke on Trent City Council
Page 6 · response
Published 29 April 2024
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 Council cannot offer immediate accommodation to everyone leaving custody because legal duties, accommodation shortages and resource constraints limit provision.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Despite the `Duty to Refer,` there is no absolute duty on a local housing authority to provide accommodation for all households or individuals who present as homeless. It should be acknowledged and noted that most local authorities, including Stoke-on-Trent, will provide accommodation for certain non-priority households at their”

Source location
Response from Stoke on Trent City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024
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
Central Government should be separately asked to consider legal duties for interim accommodation and funding for local authorities.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We as a Local Authority take our responsibilities to those leaving custody extremely seriously but regrettably do not have sufficient accommodation or resources available to make an offer of immediate accommodation at the point of presentation to everyone regardless of priority need. It is therefore suggested that the Coroner may wish to separately consider making a Report to Central Government in terms of the legal duties that apply to offers of interim accommodation, especially for those leaving custody and the allocation of funding to Local Authorities to provide this.”

Source location
Response from Stoke on Trent City Council
Page 6 · response
Published 29 April 2024
Open published response
11 Oct2018
Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of post-release accommodation assistance
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Thomas Philip Lear · 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

Thomas Philip Lear died by suicide on 6 January 2018 after he was found hanging from a fence post at his ex-partner’s property. The report raised concerns that no help with accommodation appeared to have been offered after his release from prison, and that urgent text messages reporting threats to hang himself were sent to an Integrated Offender Manager phone that was unavailable outside Monday to Friday without an apparent divert.

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
Lack of post-release accommodation assistance
Wider context from the report
“(1) The deceased had been released from prison on the 29th December 2018. He was homeless and lapsed quickly back into drug taking. An ex-partner offered him some temporary accommodation. On the 6th January she refused him admission to her house because he was clearly under the influence of drugs. Shortly after he hung himself in the rear garden at her address. It was not apparent at the inquest that any help had been offered to the deceased with regards to accommodation following his release from prison. ”
Source location
Thomas Philip Lear · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
29 Mar2017
Liverpool and the Wirral
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to refer or admit high risk offenders only to accommodation capable of appropriately managing their risks
2. Failure to recall offenders to prison or prevent referral to unsuitable supported living accommodation
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

John Clarke Jaundoo · 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

John Clarke Jaundoo, aged 24, was found with multiple stab wounds under Garston Bridge in the early hours of 15 April 2010 and died later in hospital. Three men who lived in the same supported living accommodation were subsequently convicted of his murder, and the inquest concluded that he died as a result of unlawful killing. The inquiry identified concerns about the referral and accommodation of high-risk offenders, failures to provide accurate and up-to-date information and review risk assessments, and missed oversight opportunities by Liverpool City Council.

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 refer or admit high risk offenders only to accommodation capable of appropriately managing their risks
Wider context from the report
“In respect of the then Probation Trust (1) Offender 2 should have been recalled to prison and not referred to or accepted into supported living accommodation, it was wholly unsuitable for him and in particular when his behaviour was deteriorating to such an extent in the Approved Premises that his bed was withdrawn. (2) Offender 3 a high risk offender should never have been referred to or admitted to supported living accommodation (upon his release from prison), the only suitable accommodation where the risks that he posed could be appropriately managed being Approved Premises. (3) Timely, accurate and up to date information was not provided in respect of offenders 2 & 3 and; (4) The risk assessment which should have been a dynamic process was not reviewed/revised in particular as it should have been in respect of offender 2 when his behaviour started to deteriorate so substantially and which also included alcohol consumption a known precursor to his offending. In respect of Liverpool City Council (Adult Social Services) (1) Missed a number of significant opportunities to properly exercise their influence and oversight function of both the then supported living accommodation provider and the Probation Trust, they also missed opportunities to perform regular, timely validation visits and to satisfy themselves of the procedures that were in place to ensure the aims of the service were being effectively delivered and that public protection (including of staff and other service users) was the overriding priority. ”
Source location
John Clarke Jaundoo · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 4 · 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
Failure to recall offenders to prison or prevent referral to unsuitable supported living accommodation
Wider context from the report
“In respect of the then Probation Trust (1) Offender 2 should have been recalled to prison and not referred to or accepted into supported living accommodation, it was wholly unsuitable for him and in particular when his behaviour was deteriorating to such an extent in the Approved Premises that his bed was withdrawn. (2) Offender 3 a high risk offender should never have been referred to or admitted to supported living accommodation (upon his release from prison), the only suitable accommodation where the risks that he posed could be appropriately managed being Approved Premises. (3) Timely, accurate and up to date information was not provided in respect of offenders 2 & 3 and; (4) The risk assessment which should have been a dynamic process was not reviewed/revised in particular as it should have been in respect of offender 2 when his behaviour started to deteriorate so substantially and which also included alcohol consumption a known precursor to his offending. In respect of Liverpool City Council (Adult Social Services) (1) Missed a number of significant opportunities to properly exercise their influence and oversight function of both the then supported living accommodation provider and the Probation Trust, they also missed opportunities to perform regular, timely validation visits and to satisfy themselves of the procedures that were in place to ensure the aims of the service were being effectively delivered and that public protection (including of staff and other service users) was the overriding priority. ”
Source location
John Clarke Jaundoo · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 4 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised2

Failure to engage prisoners about accommodation when they cannot find housing

Failure to commence accommodation planning with the relevant local authority

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised2

Delays in finding CAS3 accommodation after specialist placement failure

Failure of probation officers to understand accommodation availability when planning release

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Concerns raised2

Lack of available suitable Approved Premises accommodation for prisoners released from custody

Lack of local-authority accommodation to prevent homelessness among prisoners released from custody

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Lack of accommodation for people released from prison

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised1

Lack of post-release accommodation assistance

Concerns raised2

Failure to refer or admit high risk offenders only to accommodation capable of appropriately managing their risks

Failure to recall offenders to prison or prevent referral to unsuitable supported living accommodation

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 2

Actions described in response 4

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 2